The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Urantia Revelation now discloses much more about Christ Michael.

The fact that you call an archangel "Christ Michael" is all the proof I need to see that you belong to a non-Biblical, non-Christian cult.

Again, only the Urantia cult, the Jehovah's Witnessess cult, and the Seventh Day Adventist cult teach that The Lord Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Neither is Lucifer called an angel in the verse. Both Michael and Lucifer were archangels.

(Rev 12:7) Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

a) Michael and his angels
b) The dragon and his angels

Michael and the dragon(Lucifer) are both angels. Michael the archangel was the leader of the good angels, Lucifer the archangel was the leader of the fallen angels.

(Rev 12:9) The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan,....

Michael of the BOR isn't called an archangel no matter how much you may want him to be. Jesus had Angels:

Matthew 26:53

…52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"…
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The Urantia Book is a cult, as described above.

Pauls cult of Christianity fits the definition described by the harmless term even though you use it as an insult.

Paul went off to Arabia for three years and had his own special revelation before returning to start his religion about Jesus.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The fact that you call an archangel "Christ Michael" is all the proof I need to see that you belong to a non-Biblical, non-Christian cult.

Again, only the Urantia cult, the Jehovah's Witnessess cult, and the Seventh Day Adventist cult teach that The Lord Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel.

You must lie to block the obveous, the UB doesn't teach that Michael is an archangel. Besides, Old Testament Judaism didn't believe or know that God had a Son.
 
Last edited:

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
It may seem strange that we don't have a talking donkey or unicorns or iron chariots that are stronger than God, or child rape, genocide or really any of the traditional joys of the books written by the ansestors of the people who killed Jesus, but what we do have is the truth.

Spell check would be advisable in your case?
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Clarifying the Christ/Michael connection......

Clarifying the Christ/Michael connection......

The Urantia Book is a cult, as described above.

Correct information on the UB begins with the OP and here, and elsewhere.

~*~*~

Now concerning Michael:

As Caino pointed out, your concept is wrong about the UB teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel. FALSE. We covered this already in the presentation of The Creator Sons who are called 'Michaels', or of the 'order of Michael'. This order of divine Sons called 'Michaels' are NOT archangels. See here. Jesus is NOT an archangel but a 'Creator-Son'. You need to inform yourself of UB cosmology/Christology first, before assuming things or associating UB theology with JW or SDA theology,...they are NOT the same.

The name 'Michael' however was identified and preserved in the Bible as applying to the 'Creator-Son', and later assumed as being an 'arch-angel', among other developments in theology. The etymology of 'Michael' meaning he 'who is like God' still holds,...since a 'Creator-Son' is 'God' to those worlds he has created, a perfect representation of The Universal Father to mortals. Arch-angles are of a different class and order of being altogether.

References of 'Michael' then from a UB perspective found in the Bible are to be 'interpreted' in the light of its 'revelation', so one can discern the doctrinal development or mythology built around 'Michael being an arch-angel', from Michael being our Creator-Son. It could still be argued that Jesus serves in the role of an 'arch-angel'(head, chief messenger/revealer) of God as one of his ministerial-roles, but he is first/foremost a Paradise 'Creator-Son', and NOT of the lower class of 'arch-angel'.

These subtle similarities and differences are to be noted concerning this subject and the relation involved. References in the NT about 'Michael the archangel' could be written 'the archangel of Michael', since Michael who is the Creator-Son has angels and archangels under his command, he being chief of angels. It is also the voice of the archangel that sounds when souls are raised in the resurrection,....still all under the command of the Creator-Son (Christ-Michael).

For instance, in Jude 1:9, the only verse that mentions 'Michael' as an 'archangel' we read -

Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

The UB renders it this way -

P.601 - §4 Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses' resurrection, "did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, `the Judge rebuke you.'" Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse.

Other passages about the 'voice' of the archangel sounding at the resurrection of the dead, refer to either 'Michael' or an archangel of Michael,...yet they are one voice anyways, however one distinguishes. Confusion is cleared up with the understanding from a UB perspective. The title 'Christ-Michael' combines our knowledge of Jesus as both Son of God and Son of Man ( his association with being the 'Messiah'), and his pre-incarnate/divine Identity as a 'Creator-Son', a 'Michael-Son'; a 'Michael'.

~*~*~

The Paradise Creator-Sons




pj
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
'cult' is not necessarily a bad word,...its just a 'term'....

'cult' is not necessarily a bad word,...its just a 'term'....

Now you're calling Christianity a cult?

It can be identified as a particular religious cult-ure, also having various cults within its tradition....just like other religious traditions. The term 'cult' has its general definition which is not necessarily 'negative',....although some smaller fringe cults (groups and their doctrine) can be negative, abusive, oppressive, extreme, dangerous.

cult:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity

2. a sect devoted to such a system

3. a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

The more negative definitions of the term:

1. a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

2. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

3. (Sociology) a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.


Again, the negative connotation associated with the word 'cult' are noted, so one who is confident and knowledgable about their own religious beliefs or 'cult-ure' ought not be alarmed over their religion being called a 'cult' when the term is properly understood and applied.

I've elsewhere refuted the 'claim' made by some here that the Urantia Foundation is a UFO-cult which is false.

The Urantia Book is a cult, as described above.

In some of its general definitions of course, just like any religious organization is a 'cult' by those general definitions as being a system of religious belief, ritual, rites, tradition, etc., but this does not necessarily imply the negative connotation unless the group qualifies by fulfilling the criteria. Unfortunately many mainstream traditional Christians who arm themselves with apologetic ministries presenting themselves as custodians of the only and absolute truth, have exaggerated the term 'cult' as some insidious label to be applied to any belief system or school that does not agree with their specific theological formulas or doctrines, so that any 'cult' (as they apply the term) becomes 'satanic' or an 'enemy' of 'God'. While some cults may be more extreme than others, so can the qualifications that some people use to apply the term...as well.


I will add that Caino was banned for being 'unnecessarily disruptive' for writing this as his response to the UB being a cult -

Pauls cult of Christianity fits the definition described by the harmless term even though you use it as an insult.

Paul went off to Arabia for three years and had his own special revelation before returning to start his religion about Jesus.

The use of the term 'cult of Christianity' simply refers to the religious belief-system, doctrine/theology, religious cult-ure that developed or formed upon the basis of Paul's revelations. A UB enthusiast merely notes that Paul focused on a religion about Jesus, while the UB emphasizes the religion of Jesus as an example for us to live, AS he was faithful to DO God's will, teaching about the kingdom of heaven and that all men were sons of God.



pj
 
Last edited:

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Freelight and Caino---Two of TOLs worst Cultists!

Grosnicks religious heritage:



1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
As Caino pointed out, your concept is wrong about the UB teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

I didn't say that the Urantia Book said Michael was an archangel. I refer to Michael as an archangel because the Bible tells me Michael is an archangel.

The name 'Michael' however was identified and preserved in the Bible as applying to the 'Creator-Son', and later assumed as being an 'arch-angel', among other developments in theology.

Nope

The Bible makes it clear that Michael was an archangel.

(Jude 1:9 KJV) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

These subtle similarities and differences are to be noted concerning this subject and the relation involved. References in the NT about 'Michael the archangel' could be written 'the archangel of Michael', since Michael who is the Creator-Son has angels and archangels under his command, he being chief of angels.

Michael is an archangel. As an archangel, Michael the archangel has other angels under his command.

It is also the voice of the archangel that sounds when souls are raised in the resurrection,....still all under the command of the Creator-Son (Christ-Michael).

(1 Thess 4:6) For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, the Christians who have died will rise from their graves.

1 Thess 4:6 proves that the Lord Jesus Christ is not an archangel. The verse makes it clear that when Christ Jesus returns, the archangel makes a commanding shout, and the trumpet call of God the Father.

The verse proves that the Lord Jesus Christ is not an archangel, and not Michael, since Michael is the archangel.

For instance, in Jude 1:9, the only verse that mentions 'Michael' as an 'archangel' we read -

See above, you do the same thing as the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
1) Murder, rape, and pillage

That's correct.

The old covenant is full of it (as you kindly pointed out a few examples). It was the law of sin and death, under the Levite priesthood.

We now live in the new covenant, under a new priesthood, under a new law. For when the priesthood changes, the law must change.

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

We now live under the law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus, it has set us free from the law of sin and death.

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Pauls cult of Christianity fits the definition described by the harmless term even though you use it as an insult.

Paul went off to Arabia for three years and had his own special revelation before returning to start his religion about Jesus.

Christ Jesus told Peter "upon this rock I will build my church"

Peter and Paul met at the Jerusalem Council. Peter approved of Paul's teachings.

Peter also said the following about Paul's teachings:

(2 Peter 3:16) He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, your claim above is proven false by the words of Peter.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Christ Jesus told Peter "upon this rock I will build my church"

Peter and Paul met at the Jerusalem Council. Peter approved of Paul's teachings.

Peter also said the following about Paul's teachings:

(2 Peter 3:16) He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, your claim above is proven false by the words of Peter.


Most scholars see 2 Peter as pseudographical, meaning it was not written by Peter,...so this is insubstantial proof that Peter esteemed Paul's letters in such a way. Deeper research by those committed to the subject have found Paul's gospel gravitating more and more away from what Jesus and the original disciples taught, - don't forget that Paul's rebuke at Peter in Galatia, was just the tip of the iceberg of more conflicts between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, as he became more 'anti-law' and 'anti-Jewish customs' alienating himself further from the original group, going to the Gentiles who more easily accepted his teaching.



pj
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Most scholars see 2 Peter as pseudographical, meaning it was not written by Peter,...so this is insubstantial proof that Peter esteemed Paul's letters in such a way.

No, it was written by Peter:

(2 Peter 1:1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:


Deeper research by those committed to the subject have found Paul's gospel gravitating more and more away from what Jesus and the original disciples taught,

Paul was a minister of the New Covenant (NC). Christ Jesus lived under the Old Covenant (OC). Christ Jesus could not teach the NC because the NC was not implemented until the blood of Jesus was shed on the cross.

There was a 40 year overlap of the covenants from 30AD - 70AD. Most of Paul's epistles are for post-70AD believers, where the NC is fully in place, and the OC is completely gone.

- don't forget that Paul's rebuke at Peter in Galatia, was just the tip of the iceberg of more conflicts between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, as he became more 'anti-law' and 'anti-Jewish customs' alienating himself further from the original group, going to the Gentiles who more easily accepted his teaching.

That's correct. It's because the gospel had to go to the Jew first, and Paul did this at first, but gradually stopped.

Peter mostly preached to the Jews who had lived under the law of Moses (OC), and Paul mostly preached to pagan Gentiles who had not lived under the OC.

However, there is no conflict between Peter and Paul despite what the Dispensationalists would have everyone believe.

So, Paul did not have "a cult of Christianity".
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
2 Peter

2 Peter

No, it was written by Peter:

(2 Peter 1:1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Again, most scholars agree that 2 Peter is pseudographical, dating from 100 - 160 A.D. - Peter died in the 60's. It appears you haven't done your textual-criticism research but are merely believing a writing just because a reputable name has been stamped on it and its in the Bible. Attributing famous names to religious writings was common back in the day, to give some writings an 'air' of 'authority', but some works are agreed by schaolars not to have been written by the name attached to them or are of unknown authorship (pseudographical). - so at best you can only make an assumption based on limited historical facts, records and common sense based on the data....or lack thereof.

See:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles

2 Peter (earlychristianwritings.com)

~*~*~

So, 2 Peter is insubstantial for claiming he supported Paul's writings because its 'pseudographical'. We cant totally be sure the writer knew Peter, or could read his mind. Until you can prove many scholars and academia wrong, yours is just a preferred 'belief' that this book has some kind of credibility to substantiate Paul (beyond the unknown writer's imposed belief or assumption of such).

Don't forget, that a good portion (almost half) of the letters attributed to Paul are also pseudographical, or at least debated. At least 7 are universally held to be 'authentic' (written) by Paul. See here.

I openly take the liberal, skeptical, gnostic, eclectic view on Paul, and the UB has much to say about Paul (see here - 68 references), that his gospel was more centered on a religious motif ABOUT Jesus (his death, burial, resurrection, dying for sins) while the kingdom message of Jesus emphasized in the UB was more about the religion OF Jesus, how he lived in his service and devotion to the Father's will, and in service to his fellowman, awakening all to the truth that they are children of God, having God as their father. So we see, the UB focuses on the religion of Jesus, and not so much on Paul's gospel centered on a religion about Jesus. This distinction is to be NOTED.

In this very large thread, we've already covered a lot so readers can us the 'thread search' feature, to seek subjects that might have already been discussed here.



pj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top