The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.
freelight

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
You're just loads of fun......

You're just loads of fun......

TulipBee said:
Christian speculation vs UB'er speculation. Christian quotes vs UB quotes. One is from God and the other is from spirits.
Click to expand...

I don't see a need to necessarily differentiate between so called 'Christian' spectulation or quotes....and UB ones. Any true religious principles, morals, ethic, science, philosophy will bear witness of itself. Any writings that affirms and honors 'Christ' could be called 'christian'. Also.....to assume one is of 'God' and the other is from 'spirits' doesn't necessarily bear out beyond opinion. - On that note,...something can be of 'God' yet given to man thru the ministration of celestials beings, spirits, angels. - Note that these are God's servants. So basically....if God's servants are dictating messages....they are speaking of 'God' and for 'God'.

What's from god is the truth. What's from UB is unknown. Thruth vs unknown. Truth makes more sense than the unknown.
Click to expand...

I see this is quite a stretch. True,...what is from 'God' is true, or 'God' is the source of 'truth/reality'.

It doesn't follow though that the UB is 'unknown', since anyone can read it and discover or come to 'know' its contents. So the truth within it is 'knowable'....just like the truth in any other religious book or writing. Furthermore the 'truth' of existence, is Self-evident as being the essence of awareness. I AM.

The reality that transcends all is far above any 'contest' between religious books or demoninations. Just because something is not known or familiar to you does not make it 'unknowable', neither does it necessarily make it 'false'.
 
Caino

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Jesus speaking to the apostles:




"You have come out from among those of your fellows who choose to remain satisfied with a religion of mind, who crave security and prefer conformity. You have elected to exchange your feelings of authoritative certainty for the assurances of the spirit of adventurous and progressive faith. You have dared to protest against the grueling bondage of institutional religion and to reject the authority of the traditions of record which are now regarded as the word of God. Our Father did indeed speak through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea, but he did not cease to minister words of truth to the world when these prophets of old made an end of their utterances. My Father is no respecter of races or generations in that the word of truth is vouchsafed one age and withheld from another. Commit not the folly of calling that divine which is wholly human, and fail not to discern the words of truth which come not through the traditional oracles of supposed inspiration." Jesus of the UB​
 
TulipBee

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
freelight said:
I don't see a need to necessarily differentiate between so called 'Christian' spectulation or quotes....and UB ones. Any true religious principles, morals, ethic, science, philosophy will bear witness of itself. Any writings that affirms and honors 'Christ' could be called 'christian'. Also.....to assume one is of 'God' and the other is from 'spirits' doesn't necessarily bear out beyond opinion. - On that note,...something can be of 'God' yet given to man thru the ministration of celestials beings, spirits, angels. - Note that these are God's servants. So basically....if God's servants are dictating messages....they are speaking of 'God' and for 'God'.



I see this is quite a stretch. True,...what is from 'God' is true, or 'God' is the source of 'truth/reality'.

It doesn't follow though that the UB is 'unknown', since anyone can read it and discover or come to 'know' its contents. So the truth within it is 'knowable'....just like the truth in any other religious book or writing. Furthermore the 'truth' of existence, is Self-evident as being the essence of awareness. I AM.

The reality that transcends all is far above any 'contest' between religious books or demoninations. Just because something is not known or familiar to you does not make it 'unknowable', neither does it necessarily make it 'false'.
Click to expand...

God speaks through men.
 
TulipBee

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
freelight said:
But that's your 'belief' that only those compiled books (66? which were traditionally 'canonized' and 'accepted' by a general consensus or a majority vote) are "God's inspired books". You see? No proof for that.
Click to expand...
Some tests on the spirits failed based on the 66 books. Flunk is a flunk. I see the proofs and you don't
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
badp

badp

New member
freelight said:
But that's your 'belief' that only those compiled books (66? which were traditionally 'canonized' and 'accepted' by a general consensus or a majority vote) are "God's inspired books". You see? No proof for that.
Click to expand...

Is it your "belief" that Homer wrote the Iliad? Or that George Washington was America's first President?

NT canonization wasn't a conscious process in the early church. There were accounts and letters, and they were written early enough that people could verify whether what was written was true or a hoax. And there were plenty of hoaxes and bogus letters, like the "Gospel of Thomas" which got weeded out.
 
Caino

Caino

BANNED
Banned
badp said:
Is it your "belief" that Homer wrote the Iliad? Or that George Washington was America's first President?

NT canonization wasn't a conscious process in the early church. There were accounts and letters, and they were written early enough that people could verify whether what was written was true or a hoax. And there were plenty of hoaxes and bogus letters, like the "Gospel of Thomas" which got weeded out.
Click to expand...

The content of the UB bears witness to itself. Also, there is wide critical dispute about many parts of the books and letters that comprise the current cannon list.
 
freelight

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Lets reconsider......

Lets reconsider......

badp said:
Is it your "belief" that Homer wrote the Iliad? Or that George Washington was America's first President?
Click to expand...

Yes,...historical records/facts hold, as much as we have access to those records and they can be verified by multiple attestation, other proofs, etc. However,...those names applied to various biblical books are more questionable, as well as the events and people in those narratives, being subject to embellishment, mythological enhancements, redactions/interpolations, etc. Further note, my statement stands,....there is no "proof" that those 66 books (and those only) are somehow God's ONLY inspired books. The claim is absurd. Books can be variously 'inspired', some more, some less,...but they are written by men, and all the limitations, imperfections and biases present and possible by human frailty and invention.

NT canonization wasn't a conscious process in the early church. There were accounts and letters, and they were written early enough that people could verify whether what was written was true or a hoax.
Click to expand...

Even back then, determining what was 'genuine' or 'not' (and by what criteria?) was just as loose, unless a sure handed down tradition was maintained and continually corroborated. And even here, we're just talking about written "tradition" (accounts), not necessarily if any of it is 'true' in any historical sense or that anything in it has any esoteric/symbolic value, which is left up to the reader or faith-community for which the books were written. What is written is serving these various communities of faith, and so 'adjusted' and 'modified' thereby. What your left with anyways, is whether these 'stories' have any religious value, spiritual significance or 'truth' in them, to have any positive or practical effect on its 'believers'. Some writings may, some not so much.

And there were plenty of hoaxes and bogus letters, like the "Gospel of Thomas" which got weeded out.
Click to expand...

In our older Gnostic Cosmology thread, we did a full commentary on the GOT. We have an extant thread on this here :) - still not finished on commentary there.

I don't think its so much that the GOT got weeded out of any collection of books, in so much that it was a collection of sayings somewhat independent of any other collection, although it shares many common sayings found also in the synoptics. Debate is over the date of such, if its earlier than the synoptics or related to or part of the "Q" sayings collection (hypothetically assumed) or a later 2nd century work. In any case,....we look to the truth, meaning and value of the sayings themselves, like we do any other religious work.

I still do not see the need for a 'bible' of one particular religious group to claim that its "canon" alone is the complete, perfect, infallible, inerrant and FINAL revelation of God, although a particular group can be predisposed to believe such. Any one person or religious cult-ure cannot contain the infinity of God, neither the full revelation of God...since the omnipresence of God is all-pervading, and includes all religious traditions to one degree or another, as the sun has many rays which reflect its light in a myriad of colours. Even as one universal ocean has many streams and tributaries.
 
Last edited:
freelight

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
criteria hopping......

criteria hopping......

TulipBee said:
Some tests on the spirits failed based on the 66 books. Flunk is a flunk.
Click to expand...

And by what 'criteria' do you go by to assume your 'book of books' has passed any kind of test of 'authenticity'...beyond your own assumptions, personal belief and preference that it is so? That's all you got, beyond some list of rules or standards by which any proofs can be ascertained.

What 'spirits' are you speaking of? You cant squeeze or minimize The INFINITE into 66 books and claim that is all there is of 'God'. To assume such is mindblowing really. Seriously. You're also continuing to discount the law of 'progressive revelation'. While what is written by religious inspiration years ago may still contain truth of some degree or another, you cannot assume that that is it, and there can be no valid or inspired writings after those times.

I see the proofs and you don't
Click to expand...

You see only what you want to see. I recognize truth, insight and revelation can be found in many different religious writings from different religious traditions and cults. One Sun...many rays. To capture one ray and call it the fullness of God, does not conclude the truth, since the totality manifests as diversity.
 
Zeke

Zeke

Well-known member
freelight said:
Yes,...historical records/facts hold, as much as we have access to those records and they can be verified by multiple attestation, other proofs, etc. However,...those names applied to various biblical books are more questionable, as well as the events and people in those narratives, being subject to embellishment, mythological enhancements, redactions/interpolations, etc. Further note, my statement stands,....there is no "proof" that those 66 books (and those only) are somehow God's ONLY inspired books. The claim is absurd. Books can be variously 'inspired', some more, some less,...but they are written by men, and all the limitations, imperfections and biases present and possible by human frailty and invention.



Even back then, determining what was 'genuine' or 'not' (and by what criteria?) was just as loose, unless a sure handed down tradition was maintained and continually corroborated. And even here, we're just talking about written "tradition" (accounts), not necessarily if any of it is 'true' in any historical sense or that anything in it has any esoteric/symbolic value, which is left up to the reader or faith-community for which the books were written. What is written is serving these various communities of faith, and so 'adjusted' and 'modified' thereby. What your left with anyways, is whether these 'stories' have any religious value, spiritual significance or 'truth' in them, to have any positive or practical effect on its 'believers'. Some writings may, some not so much.



In our older Gnostic Cosmology thread, we did a full commentary on the GOT. We have an extant thread on this here :) - still not finished on commentary there.

I don't think its so much that the GOT got weeded out of any collection of books, in so much that it was a collection of sayings somewhat independent of any other collection, although it shares many common sayings found also in the synoptics. Debate is over the date of such, if its earlier than the synoptics or related to or part of the "Q" sayings collection (hypothetically assumed) or a later 2nd century work. In any case,....we look to the truth, meaning and value of the sayings themselves, like we do any other religious work.

I still do not see the need for a 'bible' of one particular religious group to claim that its "canon" alone is the complete, perfect, infallible, inerrant and FINAL revelation of God, although a particular group can be predisposed to believe such. Any one person or religious cult-ure cannot contain the infinity of God, neither the full revelation of God...since the omnipresence of God is all-pervading, and includes all religious traditions to one degree or another, as the sun has many rays which reflect its light in a myriad of colours. Even as one universal ocean has many streams and tributaries.
Click to expand...

Diversity is the spice of life.

Blessings Zeke.
 
TulipBee

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
freelight said:
And by what 'criteria' do you go by to assume your 'book of books' has passed any kind of test of 'authenticity'...beyond your own assumptions, personal belief and preference that it is so? That's all you got, beyond some list of rules or standards by which any proofs can be ascertained.

What 'spirits' are you speaking of? You cant squeeze or minimize The INFINITE into 66 books and claim that is all there is of 'God'. To assume such is mindblowing really. Seriously. You're also continuing to discount the law of 'progressive revelation'. While what is written by religious inspiration years ago may still contain truth of some degree or another, you cannot assume that that is it, and there can be no valid or inspired writings after those times.



You see only what you want to see. I recognize truth, insight and revelation can be found in many different religious writings from different religious traditions and cults. One Sun...many rays. To capture one ray and call it the fullness of God, does not conclude the truth, since the totality manifests as diversity.
Click to expand...
You're babbling about your intelligence
 
freelight

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Progressive revelation.......

Progressive revelation.......

patrick jane said:
Because people smarter than you and more spiritual than you tested and compiled the Bible. Many holy men agreed in councils about God's word.
Click to expand...

Mass consensus or sanction does not always prove or authenticate something. Church-state vote, emperor approval, political clout and other factors went into the formation of church dogma and rule in the 3rd/4th centuries making Christianity into the formal religious entity and tradition that it 'became' in Rome, then further made 'orthodox' in churches both east and west, with following schisms forming afterwards.

If Arianism held its ground in the governmental seat longer and with more power over time, the story of Christianity at least doctrinally might have been different. No doubt church councils had their meetings to decide what was 'orthodox' and 'heretical' by influence of different motives and agendas. The rest is history. Since those times, the law of progress and revelation has not ceased....hence new dispensations.

92:4.1 Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world's history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man's capacity of receptivity.
Click to expand...


Spiritual Revelation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top