The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Lon

Well-known member
I don't doubt what God has done for you. Thanks you for your testimony. I've been seeing God do that for people in 12 step programs quite apart from having to swallow outrageous claims about God.
Outrageous? Look at the summation of your book: "...ONLY natural..." It is a book for natural men to feel good about themselves. It isn't a book of life and death between the holy and the mundane. In all actuality, it isn't a book that gives you any advice, just gives you 'ideas' that your 'ideas' are fine, thus any "only natural" man will be drawn to it. Frankly, if you haven't wrestled with God, you are 1) "Only natural" and 2) not a new creation. The desires of your heart are "only natural" after all, according to the UB.
All throughout Christianity their are people who are finding the same Loving God
"there"
who have a very different belief about the accuracy of ALL of the scripture books then you do.
No, not many with 'very different' and not very many.
All over the world people are finding the Loving God in their religions despite the confusion they have to deal with from their various scripture books.
That you are confused? "Only natural" I suppose. In the end, who are you going to meet? I want to call you "Joe." Don't you find it odd that 1) Mormons are into "Moron-i" 2) Urantians "U-rant" and 3)Caino is 'Cain-uh-o?' 🤔 It is like cult leaders are making fun of their own congregation for believing this stuff. Do you EVER stop and think about stuff like this, Joe?
 

Lon

Well-known member
You've been convinced that God wrote the Old Testament through whomever, its perfect and therefore your doubts are the problem. Every religion does that with their scripture.

Wheat and tares are one thing, the claim by the Israelite authors that there was only (1) wheat stalk in the entire world (who just happened to be their ancestor) is a red flag to wise people. But then Noah is drunk and passed out naked. Wheats and tares start all over again.
Why? Does 'righteous' mean 'perfect' Joe? Are you perfect?
You mean you don't know that histories are often rewritten?
Which? Show me a couple of examples of President Lincoln and the Civil War?
Even if Sadler wrote the UB its a far better explanation then the Israelites story.
"Only natural" that you'd say that (he and his group did write it, glad you are open to accepting that).
I've never had to wrestle with the OT because I always knew that the God revealed by Jesus is the true God
There is a desire to be gladdened by that, but when you buy into the UB instead of the NT, you aren't agreeing to the same thing.
which trumps the God concept of the Israelites.
Jesus said "salvation is of the Jews." Sadler and you don't seem to believe that.
Sewing the new cloth onto the old really did cause a worse tare just as Jesus warned.
Agree BUT I think the UB is part and parcel to the OLD. It is 'only natural' after all, no?
 

Caino

Well-known member
Outrageous? Look at the summation of your book: "...ONLY natural..." It is a book for natural men to feel good about themselves. It isn't a book of life and death between the holy and the mundane. In all actuality, it isn't a book that gives you any advice, just gives you 'ideas' that your 'ideas' are fine, thus any "only natural" man will be drawn to it. Frankly, if you haven't wrestled with God, you are 1) "Only natural" and 2) not a new creation. The desires of your heart are "only natural" after all, according to the UB.

"there"

No, not many with 'very different' and not very many.

That you are confused? "Only natural" I suppose. In the end, who are you going to meet? I want to call you "Joe." Don't you find it odd that 1) Mormons are into "Moron-i" 2) Urantians "U-rant" and 3)Caino is 'Cain-uh-o?' 🤔 It is like cult leaders are making fun of their own congregation for believing this stuff. Do you EVER stop and think about stuff like this, Joe?

RELIGION AND THE INDIVIDUAL

"Religion is functional in the human mind and has been realized in experience prior to its appearance in human consciousness. A child has been in existence about nine months before it experiences birth. But the "birth" of religion is not sudden; it is rather a gradual emergence. Nevertheless, sooner or later there is a "birth day." You do not enter the kingdom of heaven unless you have been "born again"— born of the spirit. Many spiritual births are accompanied by much anguish of spirit and marked psychological perturbations, as many physical births are characterized by a "stormy labor" and other abnormalities of "delivery." Other spiritual births are a natural and normal growth of the recognition of supreme values with an enhancement of spiritual experience, albeit no religious development occurs without conscious effort and positive and individual determinations. Religion is never a passive experience, a negative attitude. What is termed the "birth of religion" is not directly associated with so-called conversion experiences which usually characterize religious episodes occurring later in life as a result of mental conflict, emotional repression, and temperamental upheavals." UB




You keep projecting your old yippee attitude towards religion, prior to your rebirth, onto me and UB. Since you make false claims about a book you haven't read then you are left with egg on your face....again.


Upon being presented by Flavius, Nicodemus said: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher sent by God, for no mere man could so teach unless God were with him. And I am desirous of knowing more about your teachings regarding the coming kingdom.”

142:6.4 (1602.3) Jesus answered Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say to you, Nicodemus, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then replied Nicodemus: “But how can a man be born again when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born.”

142:6.5 (1602.4) Jesus said: “Nevertheless, I declare to you, except a man be born of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But you should not marvel that I said you must be born from above. When the wind blows, you hear the rustle of the leaves, but you do not see the wind—whence it comes or whither it goes—and so it is with everyone born of the spirit. With the eyes of the flesh you can behold the manifestations of the spirit, but you cannot actually discern the spirit.”

142:6.6 (1602.5) Nicodemus replied: “But I do not understand—how can that be?” Said Jesus: “Can it be that you are a teacher in Israel and yet ignorant of all this? It becomes, then, the duty of those who know about the realities of the spirit to reveal these things to those who discern only the manifestations of the material world. But will you believe us if we tell you of the heavenly truths? Do you have the courage, Nicodemus, to believe in one who has descended from heaven, even the Son of Man?”

142:6.7 (1602.6) And Nicodemus said: “But how can I begin to lay hold upon this spirit which is to remake me in preparation for entering into the kingdom?” Jesus answered: “Already does the spirit of the Father in heaven indwell you. If you would be led by this spirit from above, very soon would you begin to see with the eyes of the spirit, and then by the wholehearted choice of spirit guidance would you be born of the spirit since your only purpose in living would be to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. And so finding yourself born of the spirit and happily in the kingdom of God, you would begin to bear in your daily life the abundant fruits of the spirit.”

142:6.8 (1602.7) Nicodemus was thoroughly sincere. He was deeply impressed but went away bewildered. Nicodemus was accomplished in self-development, in self-restraint, and even in high moral qualities. He was refined, egoistic, and altruistic; but he did not know how to submit his will to the will of the divine Father as a little child is willing to submit to the guidance and leading of a wise and loving earthly father, thereby becoming in reality a son of God, a progressive heir of the eternal kingdom.

142:6.9 (1603.1) But Nicodemus did summon faith enough to lay hold of the kingdom. He faintly protested when his colleagues of the Sanhedrin sought to condemn Jesus without a hearing; and with Joseph of Arimathea, he later boldly acknowledged his faith and claimed the body of Jesus, even when most of the disciples had fled in fear from the scenes of their Master’s final suffering and death." UB 1955

Your "natural man" giggles have been shredded.
 

Lon

Well-known member

RELIGION AND THE INDIVIDUAL

"Religion is functional in the human mind and has been realized in experience prior to its appearance in human consciousness. A child has been in existence about nine months before it experiences birth. But the "birth" of religion is not sudden; it is rather a gradual emergence. Nevertheless, sooner or later there is a "birth day." You do not enter the kingdom of heaven unless you have been "born again"— born of the spirit. Many spiritual births are accompanied by much anguish of spirit and marked psychological perturbations, as many physical births are characterized by a "stormy labor" and other abnormalities of "delivery." Other spiritual births are a natural and normal growth of the recognition of supreme values with an enhancement of spiritual experience, albeit no religious development occurs without conscious effort and positive and individual determinations. Religion is never a passive experience, a negative attitude. What is termed the "birth of religion" is not directly associated with so-called conversion experiences which usually characterize religious episodes occurring later in life as a result of mental conflict, emotional repression, and temperamental upheavals." UB
Er, not 'spirit.' Caino, Sadler isn't speaking about spirit, he is talking about 'learning' in the flesh. Spirit is literally God indwelling man: If any man is IN Christ, he/she is a new creation.
You keep projecting your old yippee attitude towards religion, prior to your rebirth, onto me and UB. Since you make false claims about a book you haven't read then you are left with egg on your face....again.
Because it is what YOU have bought into: New age flesh thinking itself 'spiritual.' In a way, yes: We are created imago deo with a touch of God, BUT sin is the condition that separates us from it, from Him. The necessity of Jesus' death was to restore us, spiritually. Sadler nor anybody, in their flesh writing the UB, understood Spirit. They are still faking it (because it is all they understand) in the flesh (because they never were reconciled to God). Flesh trying to inherit the Spirit without Christ's indwelling, IS hippie, yippie, new age and old age. It is man trying to reach God instead of God actually reaching him. Caino, please listen: You HAVE to come to God on His terms. There is no begging Him to meet you on your terms. Your and my terms are from a broken perspective. You've admitted that you don't like the God of the Hebrews. It doesn't matter. Trying to change the story is trying to make God meet you on YOUR terms. You and I don't get to dictate to God how He must related to us. The Samaritan woman literally thought in the flesh and was the old day Urantian: She only understood worshipping God in the flesh. Jesus told her if she understood, she'd ask Him for living water. She was drawing water for the flesh. She needed Spirit and Jesus is the only One Who has it. It is Himself. "If you knew who I was, you'd ask me for living water and never thirst again."
 

Caino

Well-known member
Why? Does 'righteous' mean 'perfect' Joe? Are you perfect?

Which? Show me a couple of examples of President Lincoln and the Civil War?

"Only natural" that you'd say that (he and his group did write it, glad you are open to accepting that).

There is a desire to be gladdened by that, but when you buy into the UB instead of the NT, you aren't agreeing to the same thing.

Jesus said "salvation is of the Jews." Sadler and you don't seem to believe that.

Agree BUT I think the UB is part and parcel to the OLD. It is 'only natural' after all, no?
Salvation is of the Jews because that the place on earth that the Son would incarnate. It was foreordained. But being selected went to their heads. They rejected the original Gospel message and killed the messenger. So the Israelites were "un-chosen" and the light went West to people more open to Peter and Paul's version of the gospel.



Jews and Gentiles​

121:7.1 (1339.6) By the times of Jesus the Jews had arrived at a settled concept of their origin, history, and destiny. They had built up a rigid wall of separation between themselves and the gentile world; they looked upon all gentile ways with utter contempt. They worshiped the letter of the law and indulged a form of self-righteousness based upon the false pride of descent. They had formed preconceived notions regarding the promised Messiah, and most of these expectations envisaged a Messiah who would come as a part of their national and racial history. To the Hebrews of those days Jewish theology was irrevocably settled, forever fixed.

121:7.2 (1339.7) The teachings and practices of Jesus regarding tolerance and kindness ran counter to the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward other peoples whom they considered heathen. For generations the Jews had nourished an attitude toward the outside world which made it impossible for them to accept the Master’s teachings about the spiritual brotherhood of man. They were unwilling to share Yahweh on equal terms with the gentiles and were likewise unwilling to accept as the Son of God one who taught such new and strange doctrines.

121:7.3 (1340.1) The scribes, the Pharisees, and the priesthood held the Jews in a terrible bondage of ritualism and legalism, a bondage far more real than that of the Roman political rule. The Jews of Jesus’ time were not only held in subjugation to the law but were equally bound by the slavish demands of the traditions, which involved and invaded every domain of personal and social life. These minute regulations of conduct pursued and dominated every loyal Jew, and it is not strange that they promptly rejected one of their number who presumed to ignore their sacred traditions, and who dared to flout their long-honored regulations of social conduct. They could hardly regard with favor the teachings of one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas which they regarded as having been ordained by Father Abraham himself. Moses had given them their law and they would not compromise.

121:7.4 (1340.2) By the time of the first century after Christ the spoken interpretation of the law by the recognized teachers, the scribes, had become a higher authority than the written law itself. And all this made it easier for certain religious leaders of the Jews to array the people against the acceptance of a new gospel.

121:7.5 (1340.3) These circumstances rendered it impossible for the Jews to fulfill their divine destiny as messengers of the new gospel of religious freedom and spiritual liberty. They could not break the fetters of tradition. Jeremiah had told of the “law to be written in men’s hearts,” Ezekiel had spoken of a “new spirit to live in man’s soul,” and the Psalmist had prayed that God would “create a clean heart within and renew a right spirit.” But when the Jewish religion of good works and slavery to law fell victim to the stagnation of traditionalistic inertia, the motion of religious evolution passed westward to the European peoples.

121:7.6 (1340.4) And so a different people were called upon to carry an advancing theology to the world, a system of teaching embodying the philosophy of the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the morality of the Hebrews, and the gospel of personality sanctity and spiritual liberty formulated by Paul and based on the teachings of Jesus.

121:7.7 (1340.5) Paul’s sect of Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life. Paul’s doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus’ teachings but also by Plato and Philo. In ethics he was inspired not only by Christ but also by the Stoics.

121:7.8 (1340.6) The gospel of Jesus, as it was embodied in Paul’s cult of Antioch Christianity, became blended with the following teachings:

121:7.9 (1340.7) 1. The philosophic reasoning of the Greek proselytes to Judaism, including some of their concepts of the eternal life.

121:7.10 (1340.8) 2. The appealing teachings of the prevailing mystery cults, especially the Mithraic doctrines of redemption, atonement, and salvation by the sacrifice made by some god.

121:7.11 (1340.9) 3. The sturdy morality of the established Jewish religion.

121:7.12 (1341.1) The Mediterranean Roman Empire, the Parthian kingdom, and the adjacent peoples of Jesus’ time all held crude and primitive ideas regarding the geography of the world, astronomy, health, and disease; and naturally they were amazed by the new and startling pronouncements of the carpenter of Nazareth. The ideas of spirit possession, good and bad, applied not merely to human beings, but every rock and tree was viewed by many as being spirit possessed. This was an enchanted age, and everybody believed in miracles as commonplace occurrences." UB 1955

 

Caino

Well-known member
Er, not 'spirit.' Caino, Sadler isn't speaking about spirit, he is talking about 'learning' in the flesh. Spirit is literally God indwelling man: If any man is IN Christ, he/she is a new creation.

Because it is what YOU have bought into: New age flesh thinking itself 'spiritual.' In a way, yes: We are created imago deo with a touch of God, BUT sin is the condition that separates us from it, from Him. The necessity of Jesus' death was to restore us, spiritually. Sadler nor anybody, in their flesh writing the UB, understood Spirit. They are still faking it (because it is all they understand) in the flesh (because they never were reconciled to God). Flesh trying to inherit the Spirit without Christ's indwelling, IS hippie, yippie, new age and old age. It is man trying to reach God instead of God actually reaching him. Caino, please listen: You HAVE to come to God on His terms. There is no begging Him to meet you on your terms. Your and my terms are from a broken perspective. You've admitted that you don't like the God of the Hebrews. It doesn't matter. Trying to change the story is trying to make God meet you on YOUR terms. You and I don't get to dictate to God how He must related to us. The Samaritan woman literally thought in the flesh and was the old day Urantian: She only understood worshipping God in the flesh. Jesus told her if she understood, she'd ask Him for living water. She was drawing water for the flesh. She needed Spirit and Jesus is the only One Who has it. It is Himself. "If you knew who I was, you'd ask me for living water and never thirst again."
The Hebrews had a concept of God which acted much like they did. A God created in their image. They stumbled over that God concept because Jesus was kind and Liberal. The Hebrews may well have believed that God gave them victory or defeat, but that doesn't mean that they were correct.

Yes, the Urantia Revelation is that Living Water. We are given much more understanding about the universe. Plus we know have the entire Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The atonement doctrine was an after thought. You weren't supposed to sacrifice Jesus to your angry God concept to be forgiven. One only needs to ask the Loving Father (that was truly revealed in the life of Jesus on earth) and you will be forgiven.

Its actually the way of the "natural man" who finds forgiveness difficult without something given in exchange. God has always been forgiving. Jesus made that more clear.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
The Hebrews had a concept of God which acted much like they did.
Not quite. They were slaves. They'd come from Egypt. Modern skeptics don't believe it, but it is really odd. The Jewish people today, are their own evidence of their own story. God certainly did, and does meet man at his need, but up until this point, only the Jews responded. Everybody else did as I described: created a god in THEIR image.
A God created in their image.
No no. They would not have chosen Him. They often didn't and many of them still don't. Try to THINK about your categories in your mind more critically.
They stumbled over that God concept because Jesus was kind and Liberal.
Kind, yes. Liberal? Needs qualification. The scripture says His love is liberal, certainly but our respective concept of what is liberal and how may differ significantly.
The Hebrews may well have believed that God gave them victory or defeat, but that doesn't mean that they were correct.
Er, they didn't make the walls of Jericho fall down. While in the story, you can 'ask' if it was correct, it isn't good to come up with a theory all on your own. Did you ever ask your pastor, for instance, when you were reading the Old Testament?
Yes, the Urantia Revelation is that Living Water.
No, it isn't. I've read it. It is man in the flesh STUCK in fleshly thinking. Such is not spiritual. It is human-in-the-flesh rational.
"It was only natural" after all. You can't rewrite your book, Caino. It SAYS "Only natural" and means "only natural." Why? Because the UB itself is from "Only natural" not spiritual. It says so, itself Caino. You cannot undo that poor summation. It says what it says.
We are given much more understanding about the universe.
Or psuedo... I can get more information from Hubble. Why is this something that concerns you?
Plus we know have the entire Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
No, you don't. It is made up and reads horribly like an unpublishable poorly written fiction novel.
The atonement doctrine was an after thought.
It is NECESSARY. You cannot be Spiritual without the Spirit indwelling you. That is what was lost. It is why "If any man is in Christ, he/she is a new creation." Sadler never grasped that, Caino. He never understood. Don't make his poor mistake. Flesh follows flesh, rationalizes in the flesh, Thinks after the flesh. Reasons after the flesh.
You weren't supposed to sacrifice Jesus to your angry God concept to be forgiven.
This is an "only natural" response, Listen, Joe, you are reasoning from your flesh. From expectations from concerns of flesh. God was mad at wickedness. You aren't? You love death and murder? How are you not arguing for carnality, Joe?
One only needs to ask the Loving Father (that was truly revealed in the life of Jesus on earth) and you will be forgiven.
Well and good, but you negate the need just above. Why do you 'need' to ask forgiveness? 🤔 You are parsing into meaninglessness if you don't recognize the offense.
Its actually the way of the "natural man" who finds forgiveness difficult without something given in exchange.
Nothing in scripture says "only natural." That is exclusive to thought and intent of the UB. It literally is concerned with what is "only natural." You'll never read those words in the Bible, except as saying the natural man cannot grasp or inherit that which is spirit.
God has always been forgiving. Jesus made that more clear.
We don't need to argue what is already given as clear in the Bible. We are talking about how the UB is "Only natural" in sentiment and intent.
Your book is concerned with "only natural."
 

Lon

Well-known member
Salvation is of the Jews because that the place on earth that the Son would incarnate. It was foreordained. But being selected went to their heads. They rejected the original Gospel message and killed the messenger. So the Israelites were "un-chosen" and the light went West to people more open to Peter and Paul's version of the gospel.
Sorry to do this to you. There is a bit of self-pain in doing it (I'd never choose this). I do it now, here, for you. If it weren't for you, I'd never do this. It is a pain reading and commenting something I'd rather skip.

Jews and Gentiles​

121:7.1 (1339.6) By the times of Jesus the Jews had arrived at a settled concept of their origin, history, and destiny.
"Settled concept???" This guy writes like a 13 year old.
They had built up a rigid wall of separation between themselves and the gentile world;
Er, flesh vs. spirit. Sadler is "only natural" so doesn't grasp the difference. He doesn't grasp that the man without the Spirit, cannot understand the things of the Spirit. "Cannot" Caino, it is the blind leading the blind.
they looked upon all gentile ways with utter contempt.
Yes, because it was all flesh. Those people were exploiting one another, like we are seeing in America more and more, with God taken out of their lives.
They worshiped the letter of the law and indulged a form of self-righteousness based upon the false pride of descent.
They didn't worship the letter. Those Jews in the flesh, went through motions in the flesh, much like Urantia cultists. Those who grasped the Spirit, or rather were grasped by the Spirit, were following Him.
They had formed preconceived notions regarding the promised Messiah, and most of these expectations envisaged a Messiah who would come as a part of their national and racial history. To the Hebrews of those days Jewish theology was irrevocably settled, forever fixed.
Here, you see the disdain in Sadler's written voice. He wasn't just reporting what he'd read between Old and New Testaments. He was making a judgement, much of it anti-Semitic.
121:7.2 (1339.7) The teachings and practices of Jesus regarding tolerance and kindness ran counter to the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward other peoples whom they considered heathen.
Here, Sadler is giving his scripture commentary, but whenever we paraphrase, we also show what we apprehend incorrectly. At this point, Caino, it is nothing more than commentary. Bible commentary is not a replacement of the text. It is simply one man's ideas concerning the Bible. It is best to go to the horse's mouth and forgo the commentary, if one is going to only read one or the other.
For generations the Jews had nourished an attitude toward the outside world which made it impossible for them to accept the Master’s teachings about the spiritual brotherhood of man.
"Only natural." As I said, the only thing man has in common with all other men is flesh. Spirit is ONLY begotten by Spirit.
They were unwilling to share Yahweh on equal terms with the gentiles and were likewise unwilling to accept as the Son of God one who taught such new and strange doctrines.
No. Here Sadler's commentary goes completely wrong. All through the O.T. there are other men given by example that knew God. The Jews had an outer court for gentiles. Sadler shows a complete lack of historical knowledge at this point.
121:7.3 (1340.1) The scribes, the Pharisees, and the priesthood held the Jews in a terrible bondage of ritualism and legalism, a bondage far more real than that of the Roman political rule.
Opinion piece....
The Jews of Jesus’ time were not only held in subjugation to the law but were equally bound by the slavish demands of the traditions, which involved and invaded every domain of personal and social life.
Sadler says the 'law subjugates' which is 'only natural.' The law is no subjugation to Spirit. Those who live by the Spirit already desire not to follow any other God, lie, cheat, steal, kill, dishonor their parents, or want to live to please flesh. Sadler who is 'only natural' sees the law as bad, as subjugating.
These minute regulations of conduct pursued and dominated every loyal Jew, and it is not strange that they promptly rejected one of their number who presumed to ignore their sacred traditions, and who dared to flout their long-honored regulations of social conduct.
"Oh Dr. Sadler! How DARE they???" : plain: Good grief. It is like reading a child. At times I can barely read this stuff, Caino. I literally do it for you. I've no other desire to read such poor commentary. It is literally beneath any intelligent man. It is beneath both of us.
They could hardly regard with favor the teachings of one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas which they regarded as having been ordained by Father Abraham himself. Moses had given them their law and they would not compromise.
Er, no. Dr. Sadler is ignorant. This is an affront to any Jew today. They'd call foul and rightly so. Moses gave the law. Abraham is rather through whom promise and favor came. Sadler didn't know much about the Bible.
121:7.4 (1340.2) By the time of the first century after Christ the spoken interpretation of the law by the recognized teachers,
This isn't even a cogent sentence.
the scribes, had become a higher authority than the written law itself. And all this made it easier for certain religious leaders of the Jews to array the people against the acceptance of a new gospel.
Gospel means "Good news." There were no gentiles. Only Jews accepted and spread the 'good news.' Some of them were Pharisees and Sadducees.
121:7.5 (1340.3) These circumstances rendered it impossible for the Jews to fulfill their divine destiny as messengers of the new gospel of religious freedom and spiritual liberty.
A meaningless platitude that simply means "what I, Dr. Sadler think is spiritual, as an 'only natural' man. No person in the spirt says 'only natural' when conveying spiritual truth.
They could not break the fetters of tradition.
Er, Jesus breaks fetters, Dr. Sadler. Wrong. Sorry. You are wrong.
Jeremiah had told of the “law to be written in men’s hearts,” Ezekiel had spoken of a “new spirit to live in man’s soul,” and the Psalmist had prayed that God would “create a clean heart within and renew a right spirit.” But when the Jewish religion of good works and slavery to law fell victim to the stagnation of traditionalistic inertia, the motion of religious evolution passed westward to the European peoples.
This is just dumb commentary on Sadler's sloppy take on history. European people don't enter the picture until much much later.
121:7.6 (1340.4) And so a different people were called upon to carry an advancing theology to the world, a system of teaching embodying the philosophy of the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the morality of the Hebrews, and the gospel of personality sanctity and spiritual liberty formulated by Paul and based on the teachings of Jesus.
The 'only natural' great melting pot. Sadler just literally gave you an 'unspiritual, only natural' take on his own religion and morality. It isn't Spiritual, it is 'only natural' amalgamation of men collectively.
121:7.7 (1340.5) Paul’s sect of Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life.
Caino. Caino. Do YOU actually buy this? Do you? I can't even begin to tell you how poor this is. The Greeks were "only natural" and had their own gods. Sadler admires them because they are 'only natural' and his only concept of spirituality, which isn't God, it is "only natural" observation of a man still very much in his flesh.
Paul’s doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus’ teachings but also by Plato and Philo. In ethics he was inspired not only by Christ but also by the Stoics.
"Inspired?" Hmmm. Likely not. Paul was trained as a Pharisee under Gamaliel.
121:7.8 (1340.6) The gospel of Jesus, as it was embodied in Paul’s cult of Antioch Christianity, became blended with the following teachings:

121:7.9 (1340.7) 1. The philosophic reasoning of the Greek proselytes to Judaism, including some of their concepts of the eternal life.
No evidence of this, just Sadler making an educated guess. There is no definitive statement like this, he could make that'd be acceptable.
121:7.10 (1340.8) 2. The appealing teachings
Again, poor sentence structure :Z
of the prevailing mystery cults,
Uggghhh. His writing is atrocious. I do this only for you, Caino. His writing is appalling.
especially the Mithraic doctrines of redemption, atonement, and salvation by the sacrifice made by some god.
A complete platitude of his imaginings. Paul spoke against Greek gods and here Sadler is accusing him of the very thing he spoke against. Sadler is full in his rejection of Jews, Paul and even Jesus at this point. His training is complete, he went to the dark side.
121:7.11 (1340.9) 3. The sturdy morality of the established Jewish religion.
Not a sentence.
121:7.12 (1341.1) The Mediterranean Roman Empire, the Parthian kingdom, and the adjacent peoples of Jesus’ time all held crude and primitive ideas regarding the geography of the world, astronomy, health, and disease; and naturally they were amazed by the new and startling pronouncements of the carpenter of Nazareth.
Which has WHAT to do with 'adjacent people, geography, astronomy, health and disease???
Oh then "NATURALLY" again, they were 'amazed!' Good grief, Caino!
The ideas of spirit possession, good and bad, applied not merely to human beings, but every rock and tree was viewed by many as being spirit possessed.
Oh brother. Now my rocks are indwelled spiritually! CAINO! WAKE UP!!!!!!
This was an enchanted age, and everybody believed in miracles as commonplace occurrences." UB 1955

But not Sadler. He is "ONLY" natural. Do you get what he told you in his book, Caino? That he was ONLY natural? DId you get that? He told you he was. He told you here. Do you get that?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Salvation is of the Jews because that the place on earth that the Son would incarnate.
It wasn't about a PLACE but about a PEOPLE.
But being selected went to their heads.
Not all of them.
They rejected the original Gospel message and killed the messenger.
There are many gospels in the Bible. Which one is "the original"?
So the Israelites were "un-chosen" and the light went West to people more open to Peter and Paul's version of the gospel.
Funny stuff.
 

Caino

Well-known member
Sorry to do this to you. There is a bit of self-pain in doing it (I'd never choose this). I do it now, here, for you. If it weren't for you, I'd never do this. It is a pain reading and commenting something I'd rather skip.

"Settled concept???" This guy writes like a 13 year old.

Er, flesh vs. spirit. Sadler is "only natural" so doesn't grasp the difference. He doesn't grasp that the man without the Spirit, cannot understand the things of the Spirit. "Cannot" Caino, it is the blind leading the blind.

Yes, because it was all flesh. Those people were exploiting one another, like we are seeing in America more and more, with God taken out of their lives.

They didn't worship the letter. Those Jews in the flesh, went through motions in the flesh, much like Urantia cultists. Those who grasped the Spirit, or rather were grasped by the Spirit, were following Him.

Here, you see the disdain in Sadler's written voice. He wasn't just reporting what he'd read between Old and New Testaments. He was making a judgement, much of it anti-Semitic.

Here, Sadler is giving his scripture commentary, but whenever we paraphrase, we also show what we apprehend incorrectly. At this point, Caino, it is nothing more than commentary. Bible commentary is not a replacement of the text. It is simply one man's ideas concerning the Bible. It is best to go to the horse's mouth and forgo the commentary, if one is going to only read one or the other.

"Only natural." As I said, the only thing man has in common with all other men is flesh. Spirit is ONLY begotten by Spirit.

No. Here Sadler's commentary goes completely wrong. All through the O.T. there are other men given by example that knew God. The Jews had an outer court for gentiles. Sadler shows a complete lack of historical knowledge at this point.

Opinion piece....

Sadler says the 'law subjugates' which is 'only natural.' The law is no subjugation to Spirit. Those who live by the Spirit already desire not to follow any other God, lie, cheat, steal, kill, dishonor their parents, or want to live to please flesh. Sadler who is 'only natural' sees the law as bad, as subjugating.

"Oh Dr. Sadler! How DARE they???" : plain: Good grief. It is like reading a child. At times I can barely read this stuff, Caino. I literally do it for you. I've no other desire to read such poor commentary. It is literally beneath any intelligent man. It is beneath both of us.

Er, no. Dr. Sadler is ignorant. This is an affront to any Jew today. They'd call foul and rightly so. Moses gave the law. Abraham is rather through whom promise and favor came. Sadler didn't know much about the Bible.

This isn't even a cogent sentence.

Gospel means "Good news." There were no gentiles. Only Jews accepted and spread the 'good news.' Some of them were Pharisees and Sadducees.

A meaningless platitude that simply means "what I, Dr. Sadler think is spiritual, as an 'only natural' man. No person in the spirt says 'only natural' when conveying spiritual truth.

Er, Jesus breaks fetters, Dr. Sadler. Wrong. Sorry. You are wrong.

This is just dumb commentary on Sadler's sloppy take on history. European people don't enter the picture until much much later.

The 'only natural' great melting pot. Sadler just literally gave you an 'unspiritual, only natural' take on his own religion and morality. It isn't Spiritual, it is 'only natural' amalgamation of men collectively.

Caino. Caino. Do YOU actually buy this? Do you? I can't even begin to tell you how poor this is. The Greeks were "only natural" and had their own gods. Sadler admires them because they are 'only natural' and his only concept of spirituality, which isn't God, it is "only natural" observation of a man still very much in his flesh.

"Inspired?" Hmmm. Likely not. Paul was trained as a Pharisee under Gamaliel.

No evidence of this, just Sadler making an educated guess. There is no definitive statement like this, he could make that'd be acceptable.

Again, poor sentence structure :Z

Uggghhh. His writing is atrocious. I do this only for you, Caino. His writing is appalling.

A complete platitude of his imaginings. Paul spoke against Greek gods and here Sadler is accusing him of the very thing he spoke against. Sadler is full in his rejection of Jews, Paul and even Jesus at this point. His training is complete, he went to the dark side.

Not a sentence.

Which has WHAT to do with 'adjacent people, geography, astronomy, health and disease???
Oh then "NATURALLY" again, they were 'amazed!' Good grief, Caino!

Oh brother. Now my rocks are indwelled spiritually! CAINO! WAKE UP!!!!!!

But not Sadler. He is "ONLY" natural. Do you get what he told you in his book, Caino? That he was ONLY natural? DId you get that? He told you he was. He told you here. Do you get that?
If Saddler wrote the UB he did a far better job than the authors of the Bible books.
 

Caino

Well-known member
It wasn't about a PLACE but about a PEOPLE.

Not all of them.

There are many gospels in the Bible. Which one is "the original"?

Funny stuff.
It was about the best geographical place in the world at that time for the gospel message to be spread to the 4 corners of the earth. The Israelites mixed in with the Canaanites but later claimed to have killed them all. The remaining were found in Syria.

The original Gospel that Jesus was salvation by Faith in the Father and the responsibility that comes with being a son of God. It liberated followers from the oppressive yoke of Judaism.

You said that the Gospel going west was funny but that's what Jesus said would happen because the Israelites largely rejected his gospel.
 

Right Divider

Body part
It was about the best geographical place in the world at that time for the gospel message to be spread to the 4 corners of the earth.
Again, the scripture does now support your location theory.
The original Gospel that Jesus was salvation by Faith in the Father and the responsibility that comes with being a son of God. It liberated followers from the oppressive yoke of Judaism.
You seem to think that the forgiveness of YOUR sins is irrelevant. You have a self-salvation message that is false.

You said that the Gospel going west was funny but that's what Jesus said would happen because the Israelites largely rejected his gospel.
No, I did not say that. But liar's gotta lie.
 

Caino

Well-known member
Again, the scripture does now support your location theory.

You seem to think that the forgiveness of YOUR sins is irrelevant. You have a self-salvation message that is false.


No, I did not say that. But liar's gotta lie.
My sin is forgiven by God who is a loving and forgiving Father. I have confessed and faced my sins. That was the good news of the original gospel.
 

Caino

Well-known member
2:6.6 The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality—one of justice and one of mercy—neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father's favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a father transcends God as a judge.

2:6.7 God is never wrathful, vengeful, or angry. It is true that wisdom does often restrain his love, while justice conditions his rejected mercy. His love of righteousness cannot help being exhibited as equal hatred for sin. The Father is not an inconsistent personality; the divine unity is perfect. In the Paradise Trinity there is absolute unity despite the eternal identities of the co-ordinates of God.

2:6.8 God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe.

2:6.9 Facing the world of personality, God is discovered to be a loving person; facing the spiritual world, he is a personal love; in religious experience he is both. Love identifies the volitional will of God. The goodness of God rests at the bottom of the divine free-willness—the universal tendency to love, show mercy, manifest patience, and minister forgiveness." UB 1955
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
My sin is forgiven by God who is a loving and forgiving Father. I have confessed and faced my sins. That was the good news of the original gospel.

Why does he need to forgive you in the first place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
If Saddler wrote the UB he did a far better job than the authors of the Bible books
Well, I actually hoped you'd be brain-alive instead of doubling-down.... The good news? I never have to wade through that drivel again: It literally made no difference whatsoever to you, my only (failed) attempt. Flesh follows flesh and I'm saddened by it in your case, Joe. It is 'only natural,' repeated in the UB over and over, so it is all you have left when you reject the God of the universe: a god of your own making that cannot save you, he/she/it is made up in the mind; who cannot save you, cannot run interference for you when this life is over. You chose it yourself. You are responsible to it when you die.
 
Last edited:

Caino

Well-known member
Why does he need to forgive you in the first place?
Because I left God when I was younger like the prodigal son. I was disloyal. I returned and repented. I restored right relations with the Father. Sin is deliberate, knowing disloyalty to deity.
 

Caino

Well-known member
Well, I actually hoped you'd be brain-alive instead of doubling-down.... The good news? I never have to wade through that drivel again: It literally made no difference whatsoever. Flesh follows flesh and I'm saddened by it in your case, Joe.
Insult me to your hearts content. You aren’t a serious thinker.

BTW, your mocking of the teaching about belief in spirit possession “Oh brother. Now my rocks are indwelled spiritually! CAINO! WAKE UP!!!!!!”

See Gen 31:19
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Insult me to your hearts content. You aren’t a serious thinker.
You read insult there???? I've a couple more degrees than you and a higher IQ, so listen: There was no insult:

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Thus in addition (and really the only thing that matters): I have Him. I'm in Christ. Would you begrudge one for lamenting that you follow what is 'only natural?' It is in your own book, Joe. You cannot take offense for what you actually believe! I took it right out of your book! YOU identify with it, for goodness sakes! THINK!
 

Caino

Well-known member
You read insult there???? I've a couple more degrees than you and a higher IQ, so listen: There was no insult:

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Thus in addition (and really the only thing that matters): I have Him. I'm in Christ. Would you begrudge one for lamenting that you follow what is 'only natural?' It is in your own book, Joe. You cannot take offense for what you actually believe! I took it right out of your book! YOU identify with it, for goodness sakes! THINK!
What you have is religious pride. That’s what this has always been about. The UB dings your theological ego. Jesus chose common men, your degrees and claims of a high IQ wouldn’t impress Jesus either.
 
Top