The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Caino]

Josh 24:2 Joshua told all the people, “Here is what the Lord God of Israel says: ‘In the distant past your ancestors lived beyond the Euphrates River, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor. They worshiped other gods.

 

[Caino]

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.

Hello, I'm back, I get arbitrarily banned from time to time as there is a double standard in the management of TOL. GM is allowed to say whatever he wants, when I make the same comparison I get banned. That is what it is for all to see.

Back to the discussion, the Michael of the BOR was not called an archangel. It is revealed in my religion that Michael is the heavenly name for Jesus.

 

[RevTestament]

The divine soul, the corn of wheat in tombed in a body of matter/ flesh is in the same state as a seed lying dormant in the field until the spring rain awakens it. Which is the same teaching found in the Egyptian culture, death being a reference to the soul in a tomb of flesh in a state of divine amnesia Luke 15:24 as the earthly man, when the spiritual birth happens the Divine seed starts to mature, the natural man must become less like John who represented the best born of the flesh!! (Matt 11:11) stated when speaking of the Spiritual seed 1Cor 15:45 called Jesus Galatians 4:26.

I think you are missing the point of the analogy. If the soul dies in service to God, it brings forth much fruit in Him. Those we consider "heroes" lay down or risk their lives for others. Jesus was our greatest hero as He did this when we did not even realize what He was doing for us. He did it without recognition of what He was doing. He received no glory from man, but did it to the glory of the Father. When people realized these truths, they realized the truthfulness of what He did, which is why Christianity grew. The kernel of wheat brought forth much fruit and multiplied. The truths he taught were preserved. There is something about heroes which causes us to remember them.

It is not that God demands a sacrifice, but that justice demands recompense, and God is just. The UB misses the whole point of the atonement.

 

[RevTestament]

Back to the discussion, the Michael of the BOR was not called an archangel. It is revealed in my religion that Michael is the heavenly name for Jesus.

What makes the UB more valid than the Bible given to us by multiple witnesses of God?
Daniel says Michael is one of the chief princes. As one of the chief messengers of God, Michael is important, but He is not the chief messenger - that was Christ who came as the express revelation of the Father to us, and did what the Father did.
I have to agree with tetelestai - Michael is not Jesus. He is the Ancient of Days of Daniel. The fact that the UB gets this all messed up does not bode well for its true source....

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hello, I'm back, I get arbitrarily banned from time to time as there is a double standard in the management of TOL. GM is allowed to say whatever he wants, when I make the same comparison I get banned. That is what it is for all to see.

Sounds like you have a bad case of 'sour grapes?"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You have yet to find you're mind, artificial straw man pretending to be a living being, false faith and still in paper training mode, keep majoring in traditional :kookoo: ism.

You have an extreme case of "Paper Nuttiness!"

 

[freelight]

The Jesus-Michael connection..........

The Jesus-Michael connection..........

Daniel says Michael is one of the chief princes. As one of the chief messengers of God, Michael is important, but He is not the chief messenger - that was Christ who came as the express revelation of the Father to us, and did what the Father did.
I have to agree with tetelestai - Michael is not Jesus. He is the Ancient of Days of Daniel. The fact that the UB gets this all messed up does not bode well for its true source....

Hi RT,

Just accidently deleted an epic response, quite detailed...., but this short version will have to do.

As a preface, its important to note that Jesus is a Creator-Son, an higher order of divine Sons known as 'Michaels',....of the order of Michael. These are 'Michael-Sons'. Jesus is also known as 'Michael of Nebadon', since he is the Creator Son of our local universe, Nebadon. He is affectionately known on our world as 'Christ-Michael', because he was believed to be the 'Messiah' and accepted this 'belief' to a certain extent as he came to reveal God and proclaim the kingdom of heaven. Since Jesus is 'Michael of Nebadon',....his heavenly name and identity is 'Michael'. 'Michael' is both his name, rank and status....as a 'Creator-Son'. This being is NOT an 'archangel', but a Creator-Son.

See:

The Bestowals of the Creator Sons

The Creator Sons

Michael of Nebadon

What makes the UB more valid than the Bible given to us by multiple witnesses of God?

The UB claims the use of human knowledge and concepts, expanding/enhancing these concepts with revelatory insight to new heights of comsic-comprehension. So, it has human witnesses as far as such vessels were used, as well as its super-human sources and guiding intelligences however they identified themselves.

The Bible has a host of so called witnesses, as well as possible misconceptions, fiction and mythology thrown in for good measure, tailor-made....just like any other religious writing

You judge a work by its contents, ideas, concepts, principles, what it communicates, its value....how it 'relates'.



pj

 

[freelight]

different concepts of 'atonement'.......

different concepts of 'atonement'.......

I think you are missing the point of the analogy. If the soul dies in service to God, it brings forth much fruit in Him. Those we consider "heroes" lay down or risk their lives for others. Jesus was our greatest hero as He did this when we did not even realize what He was doing for us. He did it without recognition of what He was doing. He received no glory from man, but did it to the glory of the Father. When people realized these truths, they realized the truthfulness of what He did, which is why Christianity grew. The kernel of wheat brought forth much fruit and multiplied. The truths he taught were preserved. There is something about heroes which causes us to remember them.

Indeed,....as branches of the Vine, we are encouraged to bear fruit.

It is not that God demands a sacrifice, but that justice demands recompense, and God is just. The UB misses the whole point of the atonement.

Perhaps its because the traditional concept of vicarious 'blood-atonement' is 'pointless'....or just plain absurd. As shared before, the concept has been questioned, challenged and refuted on their own grounds, and we can also redefine/re-contextualize the concept of 'atonement' altogether. We would also note, the LDS concept of 'atonement' differs in certain respects than that of Orthodox Christianity, so whose missing the 'point'?

It still stands that all this gory talk of bloody sacrifices, death, splattering of altars and even people,....well....its all symbolic if anything, and its ultimate effect is granted by 'faith', if we could even assume any 'efficacy' in such primal blood-shed or ritual sacrifice.

This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth, the brotherhood of man. It is true, after all, that you are to be "forgiven your debts, even as you forgive your debtors." ~ The Urantia Book, (188:4.13)

pj

 

[Caino]

What makes the UB more valid than the Bible given to us by multiple witnesses of God?
Daniel says Michael is one of the chief princes. As one of the chief messengers of God, Michael is important, but He is not the chief messenger - that was Christ who came as the express revelation of the Father to us, and did what the Father did.
I have to agree with tetelestai - Michael is not Jesus. He is the Ancient of Days of Daniel. The fact that the UB gets this all messed up does not bode well for its true source....

The Urantia Book revelation is like a software update not a complete replacement. It greatly expands our understanding of God, the universe and the history of our fallen planet.

The Michael of the Book of Revelation isn't called an archangel, their are different Michaels in the books of the Bible.

 

[RevTestament]

The Urantia Book revelation is like a software update not a complete replacement. It greatly expands our understanding of God, the universe and the history of our fallen planet.

The UB clearly conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, and is therefore incompatible. It is not like an additional prophet. Servants of God do not conflict with prior messengers. The UB is like the Qu'ran. It uses ancient history and messengers of the Bible to "validate it," claims to be additional revelation, but conflicts with prior revelation. True messages don't conflict with prior true revelation. The NT is consistently about the atonement. By discarding the atonement, the UB cannot help but discard the NT. The atonement is not a teaching of man, but God has taught it from the beginning in Genesis. Man could not have put it in the Bible, because man did not understand it. It is not a concept found anywhere else. By throwing out the atonement, the UB is discarding the oracles of God - so no, I wouldn't call it a software update - more like a software virus.

The Michael of the Book of Revelation isn't called an archangel, their are different Michaels in the books of the Bible.

The Michael of Revelation is the same Michael of Daniel and is the priesthood name for Adam. He holds the priesthood key of the first. This is something man does not comprehend. But the UB definitely doesn't help.

 

[RevTestament]

Indeed,....as branches of the Vine, we are encouraged to bear fruit.

:thumb:
It is a similar concept as building a stone house on the cornerstone as Jesus called Peter Cephas, a stone.
John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Perhaps its because the traditional concept of vicarious 'blood-atonement' is 'pointless'....or just plain absurd. As shared before, the concept has been questioned, challenged and refuted on their own grounds, and we can also redefine/re-contextualize the concept of 'atonement' altogether. We would also note, the LDS concept of 'atonement' differs in certain respects than that of Orthodox Christianity, so whose missing the 'point'?

While I can sympathize with your difficulty in understanding the atonement, that doesn't mean that the concept is absurd although difficult to comprehend. I myself began trying to understand the atonement at approximately the age of 14. Yes, I understood what men taught, but something just felt incomplete. Why does God need a Savior to die? Or does He? Why does Jesus say He laid down His life for us to the glory of the Father? What about the Father did Jesus plainly show us?
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
1 John 3:16
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

It still stands that all this gory talk of bloody sacrifices, death, splattering of altars and even people,....well....its all symbolic if anything, and its ultimate effect is granted by 'faith', if we could even assume any 'efficacy' in such primal blood-shed or ritual sacrifice.

Of course it is symbolic, but symbolic of what? I wouldn't say faith. It is symbolic of building the temple itself. What goes on in the temple reflects what the temple is.

 

[Caino]

The UB clearly conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, and is therefore incompatible. It is not like an additional prophet. Servants of God do not conflict with prior messengers. The UB is like the Qu'ran. It uses ancient history and messengers of the Bible to "validate it," claims to be additional revelation, but conflicts with prior revelation. True messages don't conflict with prior true revelation. The NT is consistently about the atonement. By discarding the atonement, the UB cannot help but discard the NT. The atonement is not a teaching of man, but God has taught it from the beginning in Genesis. Man could not have put it in the Bible, because man did not understand it. It is not a concept found anywhere else. By throwing out the atonement, the UB is discarding the oracles of God - so no, I wouldn't call it a software update - more like a software virus.
The Michael of Revelation is the same Michael of Daniel and is the priesthood name for Adam. He holds the priesthood key of the first. This is something man does not comprehend. But the UB definitely doesn't help.

There was no prior message that the Son of God was a human sacrifice for your sins. Jesus tried to reach the Jews with his original gospel that was in answer to Abrahams faith and Gods agreement. If the Jews would have believed in Jesus they would be teaching the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven today from Jerusalem.

Michael of Revelation and Jesus are one and the same.

 

[Aimiel]

Had the forces of darkness known that Jesus was going to be the sacrifice for sin, they never would have incited the crowd to call for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus. They never would have had Pilate give Him a death sentence. They never would have had the High Priest call for His death. They never would have tempted Judas to betray Him. They never would have faced Him in the grave and Jesus would not have had the victory over death, hell and the grave that He won and gave to us. God kept this secret throughout the ages, while hinting at it with the sacrifice necessary to make proper clothing for Adam and Eve and many, many times more in the Old Testament.

Jesus is not an archangel. Michael is an angel, which is a being that was created by Jesus. Since you don't believe your Bible you're bound to swallow anything. :duh:

 

[Aimiel]

Perhaps its because the traditional concept of vicarious 'blood-atonement' is 'pointless'....or just plain absurd.

Jesus didn't think so.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

He gave His Life as a ransom for us. Not understanding that this is the KEY element of Christianity is proof that your theology doesn't align with Scripture. Your Urantia book is sheer poppycock.

As shared before, the concept has been questioned, challenged and refuted on their own grounds, and we can also redefine/re-contextualize the concept of 'atonement' altogether.

Re-defining Truth doesn't make it a lie, it only shows that you believe the lie.

We would also note, the LDS concept of 'atonement' differs in certain respects than that of Orthodox Christianity, so whose missing the 'point'?

LDS, for sure. They're outside of Christ. They make Him out to be less than Whom He is, just as you do.

It still stands that all this gory talk of bloody sacrifices, death, splattering of altars and even people,....well....its all symbolic if anything, and its ultimate effect is granted by 'faith', if we could even assume any 'efficacy' in such primal blood-shed or ritual sacrifice.

Jesus didn't think it was 'gory' or 'primal' at all. He thought of it as necessary. It was why He came to this earth, obviously. He told Mary Magdelane not to touch Him...

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

Obviously He knew that if He were touched the Sacrificial Lamb would be violated. He ascended to Heaven and offered Himself upon The Mercy Seat in Heaven. His Blood was sprinkled upon The Altar in Heaven. God accepted His sacrifice of His Life in exchange for anyone who might believe in Him. Only by faith in His Cleansing Blood can one's sins be washed away. Trampling His Blood under your feet is the biggest mistake you can make.

 

[Aimiel]

The Bible has a host of so called witnesses, as well as possible misconceptions, fiction and mythology thrown in for good measure, tailor-made....just like any other religious writing

The Holy Scriptures were written by holy men, who listened to The Holy Ghost and wrote EXACTLY what He gave them. There are no mistakes in Scripture. None. There isn't even one single historic fact stated in Scripture that has been proven un-true. That is not true of ANY other history book in antiquity. None. It is the purest and most informative Book there is. Bar none.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[freelight]

The Bible doesnt claim to be inerrant, perfect or final.......

The Bible doesnt claim to be inerrant, perfect or final.......

The Holy Scriptures were written by holy men, who listened to The Holy Ghost and wrote EXACTLY what He gave them. There are no mistakes in Scripture. None. There isn't even one single historic fact stated in Scripture that has been proven un-true. That is not true of ANY other history book in antiquity. None. It is the purest and most informative Book there is. Bar none.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Whole books and dissertations exist on 'historical inaccuracies in the Bible'.....and that could be the subject for another thread. Since all religious books are written thru the 'mediumship' of imperfect men with various agendas, they are not perfect, and may contain some "mistakes" on various levels as far as 'information' is concerned, the recording of accounts and other descrepancies. Note as well, that human mediums can condition/distort and colour the messages being given them, as a natural feature of 'transmitting' information.

The Bible itself does not claim to be 'infallible, inerrant or perfect',...let alone the FINAL "word of God".

Remember,.....revelation is 'progressive'.




pj

 

[freelight]

Differences in the identity of who 'Michael' is......

Differences in the identity of who 'Michael' is......

The UB clearly conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, and is therefore incompatible. It is not like an additional prophet. Servants of God do not conflict with prior messengers. The UB is like the Qu'ran. It uses ancient history and messengers of the Bible to "validate it," claims to be additional revelation, but conflicts with prior revelation. True messages don't conflict with prior true revelation. The NT is consistently about the atonement. By discarding the atonement, the UB cannot help but discard the NT. The atonement is not a teaching of man, but God has taught it from the beginning in Genesis. Man could not have put it in the Bible, because man did not understand it. It is not a concept found anywhere else. By throwing out the atonement, the UB is discarding the oracles of God - so no, I wouldn't call it a software update - more like a software virus.


The Michael of Revelation is the same Michael of Daniel and is the priesthood name for Adam. He holds the priesthood key of the first. This is something man does not comprehend. But the UB definitely doesn't help.

RT,

My commentary and resource links on the Christ-Michael connection stands as far as the UB's teaching on this, so that it disagrees with your 'estimation' of who Michael is (with its peculiar LDS doctrinal association with Adam) is a matter of note, so the difference speaks for itself, whatever conclusion that could mean, apart from mere reference or assumption however that effects the over-all scheme of things.

If you take the UB as a later and better revelation of the composite of truth (the 5th epochal revelation to the planet)...then the Michael-Jesus connection is not a problem, seeing that accounts of Michael in the Bible may have been confused with a lower ranking 'archangel', or actually refer to 'Christ'.




pj

 

[Aimiel]

Whole books and dissertations exist on 'historical inaccuracies in the Bible'.....and that could be the subject for another thread.

Again: not one single fact of history stated in Scripture has been proven to be the least bit in error. In fact: recently there was found archaeological evidence for King David, which was previously thought to be non-existent.

Since all religious books are written thru the 'mediumship' of imperfect men with various agendas, they are not perfect, and may contain some "mistakes" on various levels as far as 'information' is concerned, the recording of accounts and other descrepancies.

God doesn't call someone to write His Word who would write a single word down that He didn't dictate. His Word is Perfect.

Note as well, that human mediums can condition/distort and colour the messages being given them, as a natural feature of 'transmitting' information.

Prophets are NOT mediums. Mediums use demon spirits to gain their knowledge, while prophets are inspired by The Holy Ghost. As an experienced prophet, I can vouch for this fact, explicitly.

The Bible itself does not claim to be 'infallible, inerrant or perfect',...let alone the FINAL "word of God".

Nothing is final, until God says so. When His Mystery is finished, there will be no more revelation needed. His Word, however, is perfect. It is our only source of Truth. The Holy Ghost reveals God's Mystery to all through His Word and progressive revelation that aligns with Scripture, never against It, as the UB does.

Remember,.....revelation is 'progressive'.

Yup. Until it's done. Then it will be evident to everyone.

 

[RevTestament]

Had the forces of darkness known that Jesus was going to be the sacrifice for sin, they never would have incited the crowd to call for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus. They never would have had Pilate give Him a death sentence. They never would have had the High Priest call for His death. They never would have tempted Judas to betray Him.

Sorry Aimiel, although I like you, this is simply not correct. Of course Satan knew of Jesus' sacrifice. He had no choice but to try to stop Jesus. Why do you think Moses raised up a serpent on the pole? Why did Satan come to tempt Jesus? You assume that there never has been a prior world, and you assume that the new world God will create, will not be like this one.... Even if Satan hadn't been through this on prior worlds Jesus outright told his apostles what He was going to do, so then Satan would have known.

God kept this secret throughout the ages, while hinting at it with the sacrifice necessary to make proper clothing for Adam and Eve and many, many times more in the Old Testament.

Nope again. The sacrifice of the bullock in the Mosaic law for the atonement of the congregation was more than a "hint."

Jesus is not an archangel. Michael is an angel, which is a being that was created by Jesus. Since you don't believe your Bible you're bound to swallow anything. :duh:

Michael is Adam, the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel. Angels are not some specially created being that never come to earth - they are messengers. That is what malak and angelos mean - messenger. Angels are simply the spirits of men chosen to act as messengers. Kinda like Hebrews were elohim.

 

[RevTestament]

LDS, for sure. They're outside of Christ. They make Him out to be less than Whom He is, just as you do.

How so?