Aimiel
Well-known member
Amen.
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
journey
New member
Just because you say so means nothing. I and others say that the UB is a UFO cult. YOU can be a troll and an ignoramus at the same time and probably are. Add gullible to your problems. Some people will believe almost anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You should count on others trying to share the truth with you and challenging the JUNK you post.
Aimiel
Well-known member
The fact that 'beings' supposedly transmitted the information copied into the UB (indeed it does appear to be super-naturally inspired) we know (being Christian) that the one(s) who communicated a message which contradicts God's Holy Word is indeed demonic doctrine, ergo: it was demons who inspired it. Ignorance of God's Word simply means one will swallow anything, as both Freelight and Caino so aptly prove. We know the Truth so He sets us free from bondage to the darkness such as the UB places people in.
Zeke
Well-known member
Yet you make it a human sacrifice which is only a shadow of the spiritual intent of the message Matthew 23:26, the literal never took place and was only a symbol of an inward event like Jonah. Luke 17:20-21, Galatians 4:24, Genesis 32:30, etc.........2 thousand years of bloody deception is finally coming to an end of it's power to deceive any longer, the fear porn doesn't work any more, "except against those who use it".
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
True atonement begins with repentance......
True atonement begins with repentance......
We've already covered this before concerning blood atonement or the concept of 'atonement' itself here (see all links). You are fixated on the blood of Jesus, a doctrinal concept born from primitive pagan ritual, Jewish modifications of such, and mystery religion peagentry, coupled with its accompanying mystical meanings. These all relate certain meanings or concepts 'symbolically', ...they are 'figurative'. The concept itself however is made ineffective in the true light of understanding the principle of 'atonement', which does NOT need a blood-sacrifice, or the physical death of an animal or man. - these symbolize the death of the sinful part of the soul surrendered to God or maybe rituals inspired by unclean spirits, who feed off the life-emenations released by shed blood. NOTE that in the true principle of 'atonement' thru 'repentance'...no unclean or 'demonic' spirits are involved as one re-turns to 'God' (such is a surrender of one's entire being to God). God's way of peace is not bloody, since peace is already an inherent quality of his divine nature.
As shared elsewhere, the drinking of blood (or munching of flesh) metaphor is wholly symbolic, referring to the Spirit as life-giving substance or nourishment. This comes by 'abiding' in the spirit and fellowship of Jesus, maintaining 'community' with the saints.
As shared before, the blood of Jesus has many wonderful deeper mysteries and allegorical meanings, which a mystic like myself recognizes and can apply. I've had Pentecostal-charasmatic leanings (background) and believe in all the gifts of the Spirit, but am also a universal mystic at heart, so I'm aware of the old timers 'pleading the blood' and all that good stuff. My view of blood-atonement however is more liberal and all-inclusive,....there are different beliefs on it, and logics for its dismissal held by christians and spiritualists alike.
pj
True atonement begins with repentance......
We've already covered this before concerning blood atonement or the concept of 'atonement' itself here (see all links). You are fixated on the blood of Jesus, a doctrinal concept born from primitive pagan ritual, Jewish modifications of such, and mystery religion peagentry, coupled with its accompanying mystical meanings. These all relate certain meanings or concepts 'symbolically', ...they are 'figurative'. The concept itself however is made ineffective in the true light of understanding the principle of 'atonement', which does NOT need a blood-sacrifice, or the physical death of an animal or man. - these symbolize the death of the sinful part of the soul surrendered to God or maybe rituals inspired by unclean spirits, who feed off the life-emenations released by shed blood. NOTE that in the true principle of 'atonement' thru 'repentance'...no unclean or 'demonic' spirits are involved as one re-turns to 'God' (such is a surrender of one's entire being to God). God's way of peace is not bloody, since peace is already an inherent quality of his divine nature.
As shared elsewhere, the drinking of blood (or munching of flesh) metaphor is wholly symbolic, referring to the Spirit as life-giving substance or nourishment. This comes by 'abiding' in the spirit and fellowship of Jesus, maintaining 'community' with the saints.
As shared before, the blood of Jesus has many wonderful deeper mysteries and allegorical meanings, which a mystic like myself recognizes and can apply. I've had Pentecostal-charasmatic leanings (background) and believe in all the gifts of the Spirit, but am also a universal mystic at heart, so I'm aware of the old timers 'pleading the blood' and all that good stuff. My view of blood-atonement however is more liberal and all-inclusive,....there are different beliefs on it, and logics for its dismissal held by christians and spiritualists alike.
pj
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Already addressed the issue of UFO's and 'cult' associations here. You remain willfully ignorant.
A discussion requires the intelligent effort to first educate yourself on the material so you can actually engage an informed discussion. Unfortunately few here among your 'ilk' have managed that.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
It is not wise to toss out the fear of God. The fear of God is only the beginning of wisdom. Only a fool believes there is no God.
Jesus actually DID die. We have more proof of Christ's birth, death, burial and resurrection than any other person in antiquity. The New Testament proves Christ true.
The guy is obsessed with killing Jesus and eating him! It's backward, Pagan, primitive and just sick! Jesus taught a gospel for several years and never made such a ridiculous case for salvation.
The ‘Atonement’ doctrine of paganism?
The Bible rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)
Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)
According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)
For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:7-8)
The doctrine of ‘atonement’ doesn’t make sense. The Church has turned Jesus into something very disgusting. The early Jewish Christians never believed in such doctrines like the ‘blood atonement’. The Bible teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, a strictly pagan ritual, not a Jewish practice.
“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)
A very important part of the pagan faiths was the belief in a god who was young and handsome and was supposed to have died or mutilated himself for the sake of mankind.(A.D. Ajijola , The Myth of the Cross)
The dogma of the Incarnation was taken into Christianity, like many other Christian doctrines, from paganism. In pre-Christian mythologies we often read of the hero being regarded as a God. The Hindus of India even today worship their ancient heroes, Rama and Krishna, as incarnations of Vishnu, the second person of the Hindu Trinity.
Update 2: Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations in the first century, “and by the fourth it had utterly turned its back on Paganism and repudiated very hint of. . . connection with it, loading it with contempt from that day to this”
(The Pagan Christ, Tom Harper, pp. 51)
"The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, Herakles, Prometheus, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for' men's transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus"
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)
Anonymous
The Bible rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)
Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)
According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)
For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:7-8)
The doctrine of ‘atonement’ doesn’t make sense. The Church has turned Jesus into something very disgusting. The early Jewish Christians never believed in such doctrines like the ‘blood atonement’. The Bible teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, a strictly pagan ritual, not a Jewish practice.
“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)
A very important part of the pagan faiths was the belief in a god who was young and handsome and was supposed to have died or mutilated himself for the sake of mankind.(A.D. Ajijola , The Myth of the Cross)
The dogma of the Incarnation was taken into Christianity, like many other Christian doctrines, from paganism. In pre-Christian mythologies we often read of the hero being regarded as a God. The Hindus of India even today worship their ancient heroes, Rama and Krishna, as incarnations of Vishnu, the second person of the Hindu Trinity.
Update 2: Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations in the first century, “and by the fourth it had utterly turned its back on Paganism and repudiated very hint of. . . connection with it, loading it with contempt from that day to this”
(The Pagan Christ, Tom Harper, pp. 51)
"The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, Herakles, Prometheus, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for' men's transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus"
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)
Anonymous
Aimiel
Well-known member
You are correct that I am fixated on The Blood of Christ, since it is only His Blood and my testimony that gives me the power to overcome Satan. You're not only powerless against him, you're in his back pocket. God symbolized Christ's death in the garden, when He sacrificed animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve. Jesus is The Lamb of God Who was considered 'slain' from the foundation of the earth. You need to buy a clue.
Actually, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness for sin.
No. God has required symbolic blood which represented Christ's Blood since the first sin took place.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Actually, He did. You simply don't know The Holy Scriptures or understand Them.
The cup:
(1941.6) 179:5.1 As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the “cup of blessing,” he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: “Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father’s eternal kingdom.”
The bread:
Establishing the Remembrance Supper
(1941.6) 179:5.1 As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the “cup of blessing,” he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: “Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father’s eternal kingdom.”
The bread:
(1942.2) 179:5.3 When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: “Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life.” When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down.
Zeke
Well-known member
Not as a literal human sacrifice he didn't, plenty of researchers who dispute the claims of the historical Jesus ever even existing much less being slaughtered for anyone's salvation, a crutch and control program that blinds the mind, to create a dependent spirit on something outside yourself where the kingdom is not located. Fear is just a tool and barrier one must overcome on the journey to grasping that perfect love drives out all fear of the mortal lie.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Yes, He did. Those who dispute the facts of Christ's life are foolish and simply haven't weighed the evidence provided by the Gospels.
Not having fear of anything in this life and fearing God are two different subjects.
Right Divider
Body part
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Oh, that's right, you reject the Bible.
Post atonement doctrine contamination.
The current bible is 66 books compiled together, I don't reject all the bible, just the untrue parts.
Luke wrote from his own perspective, he wasn't an apostle of Jesus and had never been taught in the original gospel.
(1342.3) 121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”
(1342.4) 121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew." UB 1955
(1342.4) 121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew." UB 1955
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I've researched the 'clues' involved in the concept of 'blood-atonement' and have already shown its inadequacy. The 'clues' are metaphorical/symbolic in nature. That's the 'key'.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The key principles here......
The key principles here......
We've already refuted the blood-atonement doctrine earlier, in many places. Edgar Jones here has an interesting thesis showing Paul to be the originator of the 'Eucharist' with its blood-atonement emphasis, while this 'ceremony' was later incorporated (written) into the gospels.
The UB presents Jesus as incorporating this ritual as a 'remembrance supper', a physical and spiritual sharing of God's Life in the heavenly kingdom, we living that kingdom here in the physical world. The emblems of 'water/wine' and 'bread' are symbolic of the life substance, so these are shared among the company of God. This can surely be acted out without a concept of 'vicarious sacrifice', for it is the outpouring of God's life thru Jesus in the very fact that he 'bestowed' himself to us in the flesh and ministered, and poured out the Spirit of truth after his resurrection. These are all heralded in the papers as part of the good news.
It could be that Paul knew of a tradition of Jesus 'rembrance meal', and then invested the cup of wine with being 'blood', in some kind of atoning/redeemer manner, in his own gospel-teaching, putting in that added element, then this was later infused into the gospel records. According to the papers, there was this 'memorial observance', but its tokens do not include the concept of 'blood-atonement' for sins, but life-nourishment of the Spirit. In any case, it is the Spirit that gives life, whether you believe in a blood-sacrifice or not (again its principle can be rejected). The key here is that Jesus gave his life as a love-offering, and was faithful to the end to the Father's will, showing us how to live, modelling the perfect 'religion' that we are to adopt. The UB emphasizes the 'religion of Jesus', HOW he lived, as our model to emulate, living the life of faith.
pj
The key principles here......
We've already refuted the blood-atonement doctrine earlier, in many places. Edgar Jones here has an interesting thesis showing Paul to be the originator of the 'Eucharist' with its blood-atonement emphasis, while this 'ceremony' was later incorporated (written) into the gospels.
The UB presents Jesus as incorporating this ritual as a 'remembrance supper', a physical and spiritual sharing of God's Life in the heavenly kingdom, we living that kingdom here in the physical world. The emblems of 'water/wine' and 'bread' are symbolic of the life substance, so these are shared among the company of God. This can surely be acted out without a concept of 'vicarious sacrifice', for it is the outpouring of God's life thru Jesus in the very fact that he 'bestowed' himself to us in the flesh and ministered, and poured out the Spirit of truth after his resurrection. These are all heralded in the papers as part of the good news.
It could be that Paul knew of a tradition of Jesus 'rembrance meal', and then invested the cup of wine with being 'blood', in some kind of atoning/redeemer manner, in his own gospel-teaching, putting in that added element, then this was later infused into the gospel records. According to the papers, there was this 'memorial observance', but its tokens do not include the concept of 'blood-atonement' for sins, but life-nourishment of the Spirit. In any case, it is the Spirit that gives life, whether you believe in a blood-sacrifice or not (again its principle can be rejected). The key here is that Jesus gave his life as a love-offering, and was faithful to the end to the Father's will, showing us how to live, modelling the perfect 'religion' that we are to adopt. The UB emphasizes the 'religion of Jesus', HOW he lived, as our model to emulate, living the life of faith.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
key principles.....
key principles.....
If one thinks about it, its a step backwards exalting the ancient primitive concept of 'blood-sacrifice' anyways, besides the FACT that the shed physical blood of an animal OR a man (or god-man for that matter) has no power to effect a change in a person, beyond what an individual invests thru 'faith' in the act or symbology of it, since one still has to individually repent for his own sins, and 're-turn' to 'God'. Repentance is the way, no matter what other accessories, conceptual frames or methodologies you add to this fundamental gestures.
Again,...it is thru 'faith' that there is supposed to be any 'effect' anyways, even if we dismiss the 'blood-atonement' concept and its efficacy. Faith in the eternal goodness of God as Our Father is fundamental.
pj
key principles.....
If one thinks about it, its a step backwards exalting the ancient primitive concept of 'blood-sacrifice' anyways, besides the FACT that the shed physical blood of an animal OR a man (or god-man for that matter) has no power to effect a change in a person, beyond what an individual invests thru 'faith' in the act or symbology of it, since one still has to individually repent for his own sins, and 're-turn' to 'God'. Repentance is the way, no matter what other accessories, conceptual frames or methodologies you add to this fundamental gestures.
Again,...it is thru 'faith' that there is supposed to be any 'effect' anyways, even if we dismiss the 'blood-atonement' concept and its efficacy. Faith in the eternal goodness of God as Our Father is fundamental.
pj
journey
New member
Amen! - Good post.
Aimiel
Well-known member
That doesn't satisfy God.
- Status