The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stuu

New member
* The UB nor it's authors claim to have "discovered" anything....they said "give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind."

........highest existing human concepts

.....previous expression by the human mind

Come on Stuu, you're better then that, I may annoy you with my beliefs, you certainly can believe what you think is right, but you are getting angry and silly about this.

* Had you actually read the UB you would know that it supports the "discovery" by scientist that this is an evolutionary world. That it is incumbent upon mankind to solve the material problems that he is confronted with.

You would also know that had our administrator "Lucifer" not become Atheist and rebelled against the wise council of his superiors then many diseases would have been eradicated hundreds of thousands of years ago. But Lucifer's default followed by Adam and Eves molestation, retarded the normal, evolutionary process for this world.

* The UB does not teach that God is some sort of Santa Clause that will heal and fix people when called upon, we are to solve these problems using science and common sense.

* I and billions of others are grateful for the work of science, where we differ is when since becomes religion and teaches Godlessness. It is no longer science when it does that.


Caino
What I'd like to see is that you ACKNOWLEDGE the people who did the work. Then I'd like to see you appreciate the fact that this poor work of science fiction is WRONG about stuff that was discovered after 1955, and is WRONG about the age of the universe to the point where it quotes a joke number for that age.

Can you do that, or is this round abuse of science operating on two levels here, that of plagiarism and the folly of adopting provisional conclusions as dogma?

If you only ever use an encyclopedia printed in 1966 then the names of the presidents of each country will be wrong in the present day, won't they. It's exactly the same with this book.

That's RUTHERFORD of NELSON who discovered atomic structure, not MORON of MORONTIA.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
What I'd like to see is that you ACKNOWLEDGE the people who did the work. Then I'd like to see you appreciate the fact that this poor work of science fiction is WRONG about stuff that was discovered after 1955, and is WRONG about the age of the universe to the point where it quotes a joke number for that age.

There is no need to acknowledge common scientific knowledge any more then I need to acknowledge who designed the computer I'm using or to source all the words I use.

In some places the revelator's of the UB "self-limit" by using only science known at the time, on other occasions it reveals things that had been known (like history) but lost. Now science is catching up to the Urantia Book.

The age of which universe Stuu? The UB says that there are 7 super universes which surround the central and eternal universe. Have we been to the end of the universe yet? You have no grounds other then atheist religion (faith) that the universe is as young as you say it is. If you live long enough you will find out how stubborn you are and how foolish science is to make FINAL CONCLUSIONS before all facts are in.

Can you do that, or is this round abuse of science operating on two levels here, that of plagiarism and the folly of adopting provisional conclusions as dogma?

If you only ever use an encyclopedia printed in 1966 then the names of the presidents of each country will be wrong in the present day, won't they. It's exactly the same with this book.

EXACTLY STUU!!!!!


Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.​

That's RUTHERFORD of NELSON who discovered atomic structure, not MORON of MORONTIA.

Sometimes Stuu, you're really childish.

you offer meaninglessness, pessimism and death.

if the UB is a fraud it is still far better then anything you could dream of as an explanation for whence, why and wither.


Your fained outrage over plagiarism is a straw-man.

The greatest plagiarism is to fail to credit God for the life he has given you. For a conscious mind with will and the ability to discern truth, beauty and goodness.


"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."​

Caino
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
exercise your imagination.........

exercise your imagination.........

Your fained outrage over plagiarism is a straw-man.


Caino

And he's been dealth with adequate responses on this, but focuses on this particular 'assumption' dealing with the scientific data and writings used in the dissertation of the Papers,..which the celestials admit to using as a base. The so called 'plagarism' issue is dealt with Here. (not seeing the forest for the trees).

I'm not so much into the scientific aspects of the Fifth Epochal Revelation (FER) as I am the philosophy/cosmology/metaphysics espoused in the discourses which are consistent thru-out. The religious/moral/philosophical truths shared relative to the soul's eternal progress in this world and those worlds beyond maintain their integrity, plus the UB has teachings that are unique to itself, concerning the nature of the soul, the divine fragment of 'God' within (the 'Thought Adjuster'), the 'morontial' form (a subsistency between the physical and spiritual), the many worlds and levels the soul traverses in its ascension and journey inward towards the central Isle of Paradise, the 7 Superuniverses, a grand heirarchy of divine Sons/angels/cosmic beings, a unique Christology of Jesus, and more......

UBtheNews (History, Science and the UB)

Science topics in the UB

Get out of your mental box and explore a little folks - there's always more..... -

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein



pj
 

Stuu

New member
Freelight even you do what this obscene book (which deserves its obscurity) doesn't do: you acknowledge Einstein as the author of your sig quote.

As for your response to the plagiarism accusation, it is damnable nonsense. Listing the popular books from which the Sadlers got their scientific material does not get them off the hook, because those books themselves will have acknowledged the original scientists responsible for the ideas cited, or if they didn't then at least they didn't be conflating this work with a pantheon of non-existent Imaginary Friends.

But this cheating book does quote without reference. You are ten times the man for that one acknowledgment under your posts.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
There is no need to acknowledge common scientific knowledge any more then I need to acknowledge who designed the computer I'm using or to source all the words I use
You could state facts without giving any reference to how those facts were established, and most people would be fine with that, including those who did the work. As soon as you start giving credit to anything for them WITHOUT acknowledging those who really did the work THEN you are entering the world of gutter-level hypocrisy.

In some places the revelator's of the UB "self-limit" by using only science known at the time,
...like that, for example.

on other occasions it reveals things that had been known (like history) but lost. Now science is catching up to the Urantia Book.
Bollocks. Not only is this not true, I don't think you know enough about science to be able to sustain the claim, and actually I have shown you here and on another forum exactly why this claim is wrong. When was the last time you removed your head from the sand?

The age of which universe Stuu? The UB says that there are 7 super universes which surround the central and eternal universe. Have we been to the end of the universe yet? You have no grounds other then atheist religion (faith) that the universe is as young as you say it is. If you live long enough you will find out how stubborn you are and how foolish science is to make FINAL CONCLUSIONS before all facts are in.
So you ahve "been to the end of the universe" in order to affirm this claim you are making? You are a bigger hypocrite than the Sadlers were.

We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries.

So which is it? Is science catching up with, or correcting the book?

These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records.

Fatuous, platitudinous, egotistical drivel.

Would you accept me saying that I know how to express quantum gravity as a component of a unified theory, but I am forbidden from telling you right now?

I'm dreaming, aren't I. You have no idea about what any of that would mean anyhow.

Sometimes Stuu, you're really childish.

you offer meaninglessness, pessimism and death.
What I write is not platitudinous, it has real meaning. I am very careful about that, and am happy to clarify in the most universal terms possible if my communication has not been excellent. I offer no one pessimism, I think I offer people freedom from nonsense. I have never threatened or promised anyone death, that is a serious accusation which is not true.

if the UB is a fraud it is still far better then anything you could dream of as an explanation for whence, why and wither.
Whence, why and whither WHAT? Are you another who thinks that the word "Why?" actually constitutes a question? And you accuse ME of being meaningless!

Your fained outrage over plagiarism is a straw-man.
You have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the Sadlers did not specifically intent to steal the work of real scientists and pass it off as the work of their Imaginary Friends. That means I have not made a strawman, I have made a case that you have failed to defend with any credibility (see also my reply to freelight on that subject).

The greatest plagiarism is to fail to credit God for the life he has given you.
Religious platitude.

For a conscious mind with will and the ability to discern truth, beauty and goodness.
That would be natural selection which has given me that.

That's evolution by the theory of natural selection FIRST PUBLISHED BY CHARLES DARWIN in 1859, almost 100 years BEFORE your thieving book.

Stuart
 

Lost Comet

New member
Sadly, Stuu is representative of the vast majority of people, people who are afraid to "chart the unknown possibilities of existence." It's safer behind the walls of convention where everyone thinks alike; i.e., at a very superficial level.
 

Stuu

New member
Sadly, Stuu is representative of the vast majority of people, people who are afraid to "chart the unknown possibilities of existence." It's safer behind the walls of convention where everyone thinks alike; i.e., at a very superficial level.
How do you "chart" things which are unknown?

In this case it is simply thieving that which was already known and passing it off as the work of non-existent supernatural beings.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
So which is it? Is science catching up with, or correcting the book?

Both, where they limited their discussion Science has surpassed, where they revealed new things or things that had been known but lost or forgotten current science in validating. This is a link to the timeline of validations. A number of new ones are now in the works.


http://www.ubthenews.com/documents/Diamond2R920_000.pdf

"The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia."


Stuu, There are lots of scientist and physicist that read and study the UB. A number of them have tackled some of the statements by the book. They have no problem showing where the UB is still wrong, but they have also found late validation of things that could not have been guessed.

From Truthbook.com:

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=101




THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM FORETOLD IN THE URANTIA BOOK?


Religion and science have long pondered the questions posed by the Star of Bethlehem. Theories abound. Supernovas, comets, planetary conjunctions, and the miraculous have been invoked. Some even question if the event ever occurred, let alone how many wise-men there were.

Of the many proposals, the planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter is by far the most popular. It isn't new. Johannes Kepler, after discovering the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in Pisces a few days before Christmas in 1603, calculated backward and discovered the 7 B.C. event. Kepler was not the first to describe this. In 1977, David H. Clark described a similar assertion in English church annals dating from A.D. 1285. In the early days of planetariums, operators abused their Zeiss projectors by running the machines high-speed backwards to 7 B.C., producing the triple conjunction. This triple conjunction means that the retrograde loops of the two planets overlap. Translated, Jupiter passes Saturn three times over a several month period. The last occurrence of this sort was in 1981.

Until recently, all calculations to explain the Star of Bethlehem as a planetary grouping relied on the standard Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions by Bryant Tuckerman. This two volume work, published by the American Philosophical Society in 1962 and 1964, listed the coordinates of the naked-eye members of our solar system at five and ten day intervals from 601 B.C. to A.D. 1649. Utilizing these volumes, the dates proposed for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction are as follows: May 27, October 6, and December 1, B.C. 7.

In 1976, at California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a unique project of special interest to historians was undertaken. JPL scientists, together with the U.S. Naval Observatory, calculated the positions of all major bodies in the solar system throughout a span of forty-four centuries, from 1411 B.C. to A.D. 3002. This attempt proved singular, since they omitted all previous analytical theories of motion for individual objects. This New method embraced a technique of simultaneous numerical integration on a Univac 1100/81, inconceivable just a few decades ago. ne task required nine days of computer time resulting in a magnetic output known as the Long Ephemeris Tape. Jean-Louis Simon and Pieffe Bretagnon of Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published this data in Planetary Programs and Tables from 4000 B.C. to 2800 A.D. (Wilimann-Bell, 1986).

In the Star of Bethlehem (Sky and Telescope, December, 1986), Roger W. Sinnott "became keenly interested" in reexamining the proposed dates of planetary groupings in light of this new information. He discovered that the dates listed for the conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter were incorrect. Compared to what earlier writers have deduced using Tuckerman's tables, the maximum difference is about five days. The newly calculated conjunctions occur on May 29, September 30, and December 5.

This insight is hardly dramatic for astronomers, but intriguing for readers of The Urantia Book. The Urantia Book was published in 1955, Tuckerman's tables in 1962, and Bretagnon & Simon's programs and tables in 1986. In order to appreciate the significance, a passage from the text follows: "These priests from Mesopotamia had been told sometime before by a strange religious teacher of their country that he had a dream in which he was informed that "the light of life" was about to appear on earth as a babe and among the Jews. And thither went these three teachers looking for this "light of life." After many weeks of futile search in Jerusalem, they were about to return to Ur when Zacharias met them and disclosed his belief that Jesus was the object of their quest and sent them on to Bethlehem, where they found the babe and left their gifts with Mary, his earth mother. The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit.
"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the Star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C. there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning Zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the Star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi..." (The Urantia Book page 1352, 122:8.7)
The tabulated differences in dates follow:

The Urantia Book (1955) Tuckerman (1962) Difference (days)
  1. May 29 ...............................May 27......................... 2
  2. Sep 29 ................................Oct 6 .............................7
  3. Dec 5 .................................. Dec 1 ........................... 4

  4. The Urantia Book (1955) Bretagnon & Simon (1986) Difference (days)
  5. May 29 ......................................May 29........................... 0
  6. Sep 29 .......................................Sep 30 ...........................1
  7. Dec 5 .........................................Dec 5 .............................0


It is remarkable that the New calculations match so closely with the Urantia text. The only exception is the calculated date of September 30 and what is listed in the text as September 29. A possible explanation for this discrepancy may be methodological. In Computing the Star of Bethlehem, Sinnott states:

An important matter, when dealing with ancient astronomical events, is the distinction between Ephemeris and Universal time. The two systems run within a minute of each other throughout the last three centuries, but they diverge in the remote past because of slight changes in the length of the Earth's day. For the planetary calculations in this article, I've adopted the value ET-UT=+177 minutes, as recommended by Bretagnon and Simon. But for the lunar eclipses at Herod's death, I used +158 minutes in accordance with the introduction to the Meeus-Mucke canon. The actual value is unknown; a recent study by F. R. Stephenson and L. V. Morrison leans toward +166 minutes near I B.C. (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 313, 47, 1984).

Whether changing the time to another value, perhaps +166 minutes as suggested by Stephenson and Morrison, would make-up the one-day variance, is unknown. Further investigation is warranted. For now, readers of The Urantia Book may take solace in discovering that science and their text are converging ever closer on the Star of Bethlehem. [note: the difference of one day may be a fraction of a second or up to a full 24 hours depending on the conventions used before and after midnight.]

REFERENCE: Dr. Maft Neibaur, Brotherhood of Man Library file NEIBAU03.DOC, 1988


COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF DATES IN The Urantia Book​


In 1572 a former professor from Bologna named Ugo Buoncompagni became Pope Gregory XIII; ten years later the Gregorian calendar was introduced. The Julian calendar, founded 16 centuries earlier by Julius Caesar, was inaccurate and the need for reform was widely recognized. Its principal failure was the discrepancy between the mean length of its year, 365.25 days, and the tropical year, then averaging 365.24232 days. This is nearly eleven minutes and four seconds shorter than the Julian year. This small discrepancy had continued to accumulate until it was no longer a matter of minutes but days. By the time of the Gregorian reform, the error had grown to eleven days. Understandably this was of concern to the Pope. If the calendar had continued unchanged, Easter would eventually have to be celebrated in the summer.

The attempts at reform set off a wide range of debates, both academic and religious. At one point excommunication was threatened against anyone who refused to accept the New calendar. The details about this reform are to be found in the May 1982 issue of "Scientific America," by G. Moyer.

In Part IV of The Urantia Book, there are numerous references in which dates and weekdays are listed. Is there any way to check these dates? Was April 14, A.D. 2 really a Friday as stated?

Using information obtained from "Astronomical Formulae for Calculators" by Jean Meeus, a computer program was written to calculate dates and the co-incidental day of the week. The program takes into account the Gregorian calendar reform. All dates are first converted to Julian day numbers, and the results divided by seven to obtain weekdays from the remainder. A calendar was then generated using this information. Even by computer standards, it is a rather tedious process.

The following dates from The Urantia Book were used to check their correctness:

April 14, A.D. 2 - Friday April 26, A.D. 2 - Sunday
June 24, A.D. 5 - Wednesday January 9, A.D. 7 - Sunday
April 17, A.D. 9 - Wednesday February 23, A.D. 26 - Saturday
March 3, A.D. 26 - Sunday June 15, A.D. 26 - Tuesday


All of these dates and their corresponding day of the week as cited in The Urantia Book were found to be correct. The odds for obtaining these results from random guesswork are one chance in 5,764,801. [note: there are more than 100 such dates in Part IV of The Urantia Book. An additional 30 have now been checked and all were correct.]




Caino
 

Lost Comet

New member
How do you "chart" things which are unknown?
Explore the territories for yourself instead of rummaging through the dumping grounds of others.

In this case it is simply thieving that which was already known and passing it off as the work of non-existent supernatural beings.
At least it's honest "thievery."
17.1) 0:12.12 Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.
One of the audio versions of the book has this prelude:
The Urantia Book is published as a single volume. It consists of the titles of the papers, the contents of the book, the foreword, and one hundred ninety-six papers. Whether read or heard, the foreword and each of the papers are meant to be studied in relationship to the whole work and not to separated from the context of the complete teachings of The Urantia Book. Seen within this broader context, meanings will be amplified and the potential for misunderstanding lessened.

The following is a review of the book found, of all places, in Oui magazine.
A Cosmic Bible​

The Urantia Book (Urantia Foundation) purports to be no less than a gospel from outer space. A 2097-page answer to the overwhelming question: Who are we and where do we come from? For starters, our planet is called Urantia. It’s “one of many similar planets that comprise the local universe of Nebadon” An exciting bit of information. You, me, the weirdo next door—we’re all Urantians. And what and unfortunate lot we are. In the absence of divine guidance, we have become overrun with defectives. Selfishness prevails. What’s a Urantian to do?

How did the book get here? Rumor has it that the manuscript was found in a Cleveland tenement in 1935. The first edition of the book appeared 20 years later. At the Urantia Foundation in Chicago, where the book is published, members of the nearly secret Urantia Society are incredibly tight-lipped. They profess indifference to the book’s origins. They give brief but courteous answers to your questions. And nobody tries to sell you anything. Not even The Urantia Book. Something is definitely not right.

It’s tempting to dismiss the whole thing as nonsense, of course. But nonsense is rarely so well-written. Or so reasonable. And seldom so interesting. You have to see this book to believe it. You’ll want to leave a copy out on the coffee table when friends come over. Act very mysterious about it. Everybody loves an enigma.
—Steven Kosek
Do a little investigating, and you will discover that many of even its harshest critics admit that the book is well-written and self-consistent.

In short, Stuu, you come off as sounding like an ignorant, narrow-minded and nit-picking bigot.
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
adventures in learning........

adventures in learning........

Freelight even you do what this obscene book (which deserves its obscurity) doesn't do: you acknowledge Einstein as the author of your sig quote.

As for your response to the plagiarism accusation, it is damnable nonsense. Listing the popular books from which the Sadlers got their scientific material does not get them off the hook, because those books themselves will have acknowledged the original scientists responsible for the ideas cited, or if they didn't then at least they didn't be conflating this work with a pantheon of non-existent Imaginary Friends.

But this cheating book does quote without reference. You are ten times the man for that one acknowledgment under your posts.

Stuart

Hi Stuu,

Its all good. I say no spiritual library is complete without a UB in it, no matter one's opinion, - it shares insights and cosmic comprehensions significant to mankind's condition and destiny within the 20th century and beyond (the soul's epic journey). I enjoy all formats of knowledge within the various 'vehicles' they may come, - religious cultures/traditions, mythos, meta-phor/meta-physics, expanding consciousness, exploring new frontiers,...since I see life as a wonderful adventure of endless discovery.

Life is not limited to the confines of conventional science (qualified only by matterial proofs) or empiricism, since psychic/spiritual dimensions of experience also have their own 'science'(experienced knowledge) known to the soul in its relationship to the Greater Whole and its parts in an engaging universe of energy, mind, spirit and matter. Truth includes all that exists, all that is intrinsic to Life and Consciousness - the 'totality' of all experience in space/time and eternity. The fun is in relating these various points of view within the Matrix we all live within...being 'open' to learn. Life is for learning; multiple formats, conceptual frames and environments are provided to facilitate such :)


pj
 

Stuu

New member
Caino

Stuu: So which is it? Is science catching up with, or correcting the book?
Both, where they limited their discussion Science has surpassed, where they revealed new things or things that had been known but lost or forgotten current science in validating. This is a link to the timeline of validations. A number of new ones are now in the works.
Once again, this time using English grammar and parsing?

"The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia.
Where?

Whose “truth”?

These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality
A what?

but a composite presentation by many beings.
The Sadlers and perhaps a few of their crackpot friends who have read some science and maybe taken some drugs?

But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father
The what?

can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations
What are they?

are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations,
Who should respect “revelation” or authority when it comes to deciding whether a claim is right?

the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia."
Platitudes.

Stuu, There are lots of scientist and physicist that read and study the UB. A number of them have tackled some of the statements by the book. They have no problem showing where the UB is still wrong, but they have also found late validation of things that could not have been guessed.
The old “lots of scientists” thing, eh? And “could not be guessed” all in one big appeal to authority and incredulity. Both are logical fallacies.

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM FORETOLD IN THE URANTIA BOOK?

Religion and science have long pondered the questions posed by the Star of Bethlehem. Theories abound. Supernovas, comets, planetary conjunctions, and the miraculous have been invoked. Some even question if the event ever occurred, let alone how many wise-men there were.

Of the many proposals, the planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter is by far the most popular. It isn't new. Johannes Kepler, after discovering the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in Pisces a few days before Christmas in 1603, calculated backward and discovered the 7 B.C. event. Kepler was not the first to describe this. In 1977, David H. Clark described a similar assertion in English church annals dating from A.D. 1285. In the early days of planetariums, operators abused their Zeiss projectors by running the machines high-speed backwards to 7 B.C., producing the triple conjunction. This triple conjunction means that the retrograde loops of the two planets overlap. Translated, Jupiter passes Saturn three times over a several month period. The last occurrence of this sort was in 1981.

Until recently, all calculations to explain the Star of Bethlehem as a planetary grouping relied on the standard Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions by Bryant Tuckerman. This two volume work, published by the American Philosophical Society in 1962 and 1964, listed the coordinates of the naked-eye members of our solar system at five and ten day intervals from 601 B.C. to A.D. 1649. Utilizing these volumes, the dates proposed for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction are as follows: May 27, October 6, and December 1, B.C. 7.

In 1976, at California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a unique project of special interest to historians was undertaken. JPL scientists, together with the U.S. Naval Observatory, calculated the positions of all major bodies in the solar system throughout a span of forty-four centuries, from 1411 B.C. to A.D. 3002. This attempt proved singular, since they omitted all previous analytical theories of motion for individual objects. This New method embraced a technique of simultaneous numerical integration on a Univac 1100/81, inconceivable just a few decades ago. ne task required nine days of computer time resulting in a magnetic output known as the Long Ephemeris Tape. Jean-Louis Simon and Pieffe Bretagnon of Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published this data in Planetary Programs and Tables from 4000 B.C. to 2800 A.D. (Wilimann-Bell, 1986).

In the Star of Bethlehem (Sky and Telescope, December, 1986), Roger W. Sinnott "became keenly interested" in reexamining the proposed dates of planetary groupings in light of this new information. He discovered that the dates listed for the conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter were incorrect. Compared to what earlier writers have deduced using Tuckerman's tables, the maximum difference is about five days. The newly calculated conjunctions occur on May 29, September 30, and December 5.

This insight is hardly dramatic for astronomers, but intriguing for readers of The Urantia Book. The Urantia Book was published in 1955, Tuckerman's tables in 1962, and Bretagnon & Simon's programs and tables in 1986. In order to appreciate the significance, a passage from the text follows: "These priests from Mesopotamia had been told sometime before by a strange religious teacher of their country that he had a dream in which he was informed that "the light of life" was about to appear on earth as a babe and among the Jews. And thither went these three teachers looking for this "light of life." After many weeks of futile search in Jerusalem, they were about to return to Ur when Zacharias met them and disclosed his belief that Jesus was the object of their quest and sent them on to Bethlehem, where they found the babe and left their gifts with Mary, his earth mother. The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit.
"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the Star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C. there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning Zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the Star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi..." (The Urantia Book page 1352, 122:8.7)
The tabulated differences in dates follow:

The Urantia Book (1955) Tuckerman (1962) Difference (days)

1. May 29 ...............................May 27......................... 2
2. Sep 29 ................................Oct 6 .............................7
3. Dec 5 .................................. Dec 1 ........................... 4

4. The Urantia Book (1955) Bretagnon & Simon (1986) Difference (days)
5. May 29 ......................................May 29........................... 0
6. Sep 29 .......................................Sep 30 ...........................1
7. Dec 5 .........................................Dec 5 .............................0



It is remarkable that the New calculations match so closely with the Urantia text. The only exception is the calculated date of September 30 and what is listed in the text as September 29. A possible explanation for this discrepancy may be methodological. In Computing the Star of Bethlehem, Sinnott states:

An important matter, when dealing with ancient astronomical events, is the distinction between Ephemeris and Universal time. The two systems run within a minute of each other throughout the last three centuries, but they diverge in the remote past because of slight changes in the length of the Earth's day. For the planetary calculations in this article, I've adopted the value ET-UT=+177 minutes, as recommended by Bretagnon and Simon. But for the lunar eclipses at Herod's death, I used +158 minutes in accordance with the introduction to the Meeus-Mucke canon. The actual value is unknown; a recent study by F. R. Stephenson and L. V. Morrison leans toward +166 minutes near I B.C. (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 313, 47, 1984).

Whether changing the time to another value, perhaps +166 minutes as suggested by Stephenson and Morrison, would make-up the one-day variance, is unknown. Further investigation is warranted. For now, readers of The Urantia Book may take solace in discovering that science and their text are converging ever closer on the Star of Bethlehem. [note: the difference of one day may be a fraction of a second or up to a full 24 hours depending on the conventions used before and after midnight.]

REFERENCE: Dr. Maft Neibaur, Brotherhood of Man Library file NEIBAU03.DOC, 1988
What star of Bethlehem?


COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF DATES IN The Urantia Book

In 1572 a former professor from Bologna named Ugo Buoncompagni became Pope Gregory XIII; ten years later the Gregorian calendar was introduced. The Julian calendar, founded 16 centuries earlier by Julius Caesar, was inaccurate and the need for reform was widely recognized. Its principal failure was the discrepancy between the mean length of its year, 365.25 days, and the tropical year, then averaging 365.24232 days. This is nearly eleven minutes and four seconds shorter than the Julian year. This small discrepancy had continued to accumulate until it was no longer a matter of minutes but days. By the time of the Gregorian reform, the error had grown to eleven days. Understandably this was of concern to the Pope. If the calendar had continued unchanged, Easter would eventually have to be celebrated in the summer.
My goodness, how terrible.

The attempts at reform set off a wide range of debates, both academic and religious. At one point excommunication was threatened against anyone who refused to accept the New calendar. The details about this reform are to be found in the May 1982 issue of "Scientific America," by G. Moyer.
I think it’s actually called “Scientific American” isn’t it?

In Part IV of The Urantia Book, there are numerous references in which dates and weekdays are listed. Is there any way to check these dates? Was April 14, A.D. 2 really a Friday as stated?

Using information obtained from "Astronomical Formulae for Calculators" by Jean Meeus, a computer program was written to calculate dates and the co-incidental day of the week. The program takes into account the Gregorian calendar reform. All dates are first converted to Julian day numbers, and the results divided by seven to obtain weekdays from the remainder. A calendar was then generated using this information. Even by computer standards, it is a rather tedious process.

The following dates from The Urantia Book were used to check their correctness:

April 14, A.D. 2 - Friday April 26, A.D. 2 - Sunday
June 24, A.D. 5 - Wednesday January 9, A.D. 7 - Sunday
April 17, A.D. 9 - Wednesday February 23, A.D. 26 - Saturday
March 3, A.D. 26 - Sunday June 15, A.D. 26 - Tuesday


All of these dates and their corresponding day of the week as cited in The Urantia Book were found to be correct. The odds for obtaining these results from random guesswork are one chance in 5,764,801. [note: there are more than 100 such dates in Part IV of The Urantia Book. An additional 30 have now been checked and all were correct.]
And yet this book of stealing from real people says that the earth attained its present size 1,000,000,000 years ago, which is either a trivial statement because on the submicroscopic level it has ONLY JUST attained its present size, but on the macroscopic level it attained its current size over 4,000,000,000 years ago.

It claims that the sun was created 2 billion years ago, but actually it was over 4½ billion years ago.

So it’s record on dates is actually spectacularly poor.

It also claims that the material to make the solar system came from the sun but that is not true either. The sun is not big enough to make to make heavy elements.

This book asserted wrong dates and wrong science as fact and stole right science without reference.

What a crock it is

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Hi Stuu,

Its all good. I say no spiritual library is complete without a UB in it, no matter one's opinion, - it shares insights and cosmic comprehensions significant to mankind's condition and destiny within the 20th century and beyond (the soul's epic journey). I enjoy all formats of knowledge within the various 'vehicles' they may come, - religious cultures/traditions, mythos, meta-phor/meta-physics, expanding consciousness, exploring new frontiers,...since I see life as a wonderful adventure of endless discovery.

Life is not limited to the confines of conventional science (qualified only by matterial proofs) or empiricism, since psychic/spiritual dimensions of experience also have their own 'science'(experienced knowledge) known to the soul in its relationship to the Greater Whole and its parts in an engaging universe of energy, mind, spirit and matter. Truth includes all that exists, all that is intrinsic to Life and Consciousness - the 'totality' of all experience in space/time and eternity. The fun is in relating these various points of view within the Matrix we all live within...being 'open' to learn. Life is for learning; multiple formats, conceptual frames and environments are provided to facilitate such :)


pj
The UB is not thick enough to be even useful for standing on to reach books on the top shelf.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Do a little investigating, and you will discover that many of even its harshest critics admit that the book is well-written and self-consistent.
I would disagree with the well-written aspect. Self-consistency is not necessarily a good quality.

In short, Stuu, you come off as sounding like an ignorant, narrow-minded and nit-picking bigot.
At least I am not a common thief.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Caino

Stuu: So which is it? Is science catching up with, or correcting the book?

Once again, this time using English grammar and parsing?


Where?

Whose “truth”?


A what?


The Sadlers and perhaps a few of their crackpot friends who have read some science and maybe taken some drugs?


The what?


What are they?


Who should respect “revelation” or authority when it comes to deciding whether a claim is right?


Platitudes.


The old “lots of scientists” thing, eh? And “could not be guessed” all in one big appeal to authority and incredulity. Both are logical fallacies.


What star of Bethlehem?



My goodness, how terrible.


I think it’s actually called “Scientific American” isn’t it?


And yet this book of stealing from real people says that the earth attained its present size 1,000,000,000 years ago, which is either a trivial statement because on the submicroscopic level it has ONLY JUST attained its present size, but on the macroscopic level it attained its current size over 4,000,000,000 years ago.

It claims that the sun was created 2 billion years ago, but actually it was over 4½ billion years ago.

So it’s record on dates is actually spectacularly poor.

It also claims that the material to make the solar system came from the sun but that is not true either. The sun is not big enough to make to make heavy elements.

This book asserted wrong dates and wrong science as fact and stole right science without reference.

What a crock it is

Stuart

Stuu has not read the UB so he says ignorant things about whats in it.

UB:

4. TERTIARY AND QUARTAN STAGES



57:4.1 The primary stage of a nebula is circular; the secondary, spiral; the tertiary stage is that of the first sun dispersion, while the quartan embraces the second and last cycle of sun dispersion, with the mother nucleus ending either as a globular cluster or as a solitary sun functioning as the center of a terminal solar system.

57:4.2 75,000,000,000 years ago this nebula had attained the height of its sun-family stage. This was the apex of the first period of sun losses. The majority of these suns have since possessed themselves of extensive systems of planets, satellites, dark islands, comets, meteors, and cosmic dust clouds.

57:4.3 50,000,000,000 years ago this first period of sun dispersion was completed; the nebula was fast finishing its tertiary cycle of existence, during which it gave origin to 876,926 sun systems.

57:4.4 25,000,000,000 years ago witnessed the completion of the tertiary cycle of nebular life and brought about the organization and relative stabilization of the far-flung starry systems derived from this parent nebula. But the process of physical contraction and increased heat production continued in the central mass of the nebular remnant.

57:4.5 10,000,000,000 years ago the quartan cycle of Andronover began. The maximum of nuclear-mass temperature had been attained; the critical point of condensation was approaching. The original mother nucleus was convulsing under the combined pressure of its own internal-heat condensation tension and the increasing gravity-tidal pull of the surrounding swarm of liberated sun systems. The nuclear eruptions which were to inaugurate the second nebular sun cycle were imminent. The quartan cycle of nebular existence was about to begin.

57:4.6 8,000,000,000 years ago the terrific terminal eruption began. Only the outer systems are safe at the time of such a cosmic upheaval. And this was the beginning of the end of the nebula. This final sun disgorgement extended over a period of almost two billion years.

57:4.7 7,000,000,000 years ago witnessed the height of the Andronover terminal breakup. This was the period of the birth of the larger terminal suns and the apex of the local physical disturbances.

57:4.8 6,000,000,000 years ago marks the end of the terminal breakup and the birth of your sun, the fifty-sixth from the last of the Andronover second solar family. This final eruption of the nebular nucleus gave birth to 136,702 suns, most of them solitary orbs. The total number of suns and sun systems having origin in the Andronover nebula was 1,013,628. The number of the solar system sun is 1,013,572.

57:4.9 And now the great Andronover nebula is no more, but it lives on in the many suns and their planetary families which originated in this mother cloud of space. The final nuclear remnant of this magnificent nebula still burns with a reddish glow and continues to give forth moderate light and heat to its remnant planetary family of one hundred and sixty-five worlds, which now revolve about this venerable mother of two mighty generations of the monarchs of light​
.




Stuu claims the earth reached it's present size 4,000,000,000 years ago. He fails to take into account meteoric bombardment.

Better that you chose science instead of accounting.

Caino
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
Stuu claims the earth reached it's present size 4,000,000,000 years ago. He fails to take into account meteoric bombardment.

Better that you chose science instead of accounting.

Caino
Don't worry about reading what I wrote or anything, will you.

Stuart
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
soul death or survival...........

soul death or survival...........

~*~*~

One of the most interesting teachings in the UB is the 'soul', its constitution(make-up) and survival or 'immortality' potential. I'm also curious if the SDA(seventh-day-adventist) perspective of 'soul-anihilation' influenced or provided a conceptual frame in which the celestials explained the concept of 'soul-death' (for some involved in the dissemination of the Papers were SDAs.) In any case, given the unique composition of the soul, the faculty of 'self-will' and 'choice' appear to be near 'sovereign' in determining one's condition and ultimate destiny, of which it is possible that some may actually choose a final and eternal 'death' (disintegration of personality-unification, extinction of existence as a functioning soul-unit). - this would correspond with the concept of the wicked being 'de-stroyed' or we could say 'dis-integrated' or 'de-constructed' - the primal energy and experience of values/meanings of such souls would be returned/re-absorbed back into the Universal Spirit (God the Supreme) and the TA (Thought Adjuster) that indwelt the soul.

Here is a passage for our contemplation -

"Ignorance alone can never prevent survival; neither can confusional doubts nor fearful uncertainty. Only conscious resistance to the Adjuster's leading can prevent the survival of the evolving immortal soul."

(1206.3) 110:3.5

*
We learn that only 'conscious resistance' or fully chosen willful rebellion or 'iniquity' can prevent soul-survival, the continued evolution of a particular soul. Ultimately, only if a soul exhausts all opportunity of repentance and 'salvation', does it come before the heavenly tribunal to be 'judged', where a decision is made upon its 'termination' or 'disintegration'. Thru-out the sojourn or existence of any soul, the perfection of God's justice and mercy is ever administered, in co-operation with the soul's freedom to choose. In contemplating such, one can rest assured of God's divine fairness and infinite love which grants all that is possible in effecting the survival, eternal life and ultimate joy of his offspring while wholly respecting freedom of choice.

Experienced readers may add passages from the UB to further illuminate this wonderful topic :)

UB Fellowship


Intro to the UB
- Mother thread


pj
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
This what the SDA's believe about the soul at death:


"SDA believe that when you die that your soul will go into a "state" of sleeping. This is not a sleeping as you experience every night, as in a "rest" sleep. This is sort of more a "death" type of sleep. This state begins (saved and unsaved) at the moment your mind and bodily functions cease to function. It is at that time that your "soul" will enter into a non-existences, and/or sleep until that time when Jesus returns and that last trump sounds (1Cor 15:51) and the dead will rise and be judged (Rev 20:11-15). Some SDA believe that your soul stays or resides at the location that it (your body) is resting, other SDA believe that the soul just "disappears" into a nothingness until Jesus returns to "pop" it back into existence (where the latter doctrine comes from no one knows). SDA get this doctrine from a combination of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) scriptures (mixing and melding the two)."


Caino
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The Kingdom of heaven, what ever happened to it?


“You behold me now in weakness and in the flesh, but when I return, it shall be with power and in the spirit. The eye of flesh beholds the Son of Man in the flesh, but only the eye of the spirit will behold the Son of Man glorified by the Father and appearing on earth in his own name."


"When Jesus' immediate followers recognized their partial failure to realize his ideal of the establishment of the kingdom in the hearts of men by the spirit's domination and guidance of the individual believer, they set about to save his teaching from being wholly lost by substituting for the Master's ideal of the kingdom the gradual creation of a visible social organization, the Christian church. And when they had accomplished this program of substitution, in order to maintain consistency and to provide for the recognition of the Master's teaching regarding the fact of the kingdom, they proceeded to set the kingdom off into the future. The church, just as soon as it was well established, began to teach that the kingdom was in reality to appear at the culmination of the Christian age, at the second coming of Christ."

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=1422#U170_0_1



Caino
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Back to my former points.....

Back to my former points.....

This what the SDA's believe about the soul at death:


"SDA believe that when you die that your soul will go into a "state" of sleeping. This is not a sleeping as you experience every night, as in a "rest" sleep. This is sort of more a "death" type of sleep. This state begins (saved and unsaved) at the moment your mind and bodily functions cease to function. It is at that time that your "soul" will enter into a non-existences, and/or sleep until that time when Jesus returns and that last trump sounds (1Cor 15:51) and the dead will rise and be judged (Rev 20:11-15). Some SDA believe that your soul stays or resides at the location that it (your body) is resting, other SDA believe that the soul just "disappears" into a nothingness until Jesus returns to "pop" it back into existence (where the latter doctrine comes from no one knows). SDA get this doctrine from a combination of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) scriptures (mixing and melding the two)."


Caino

Yes,

As per my last post, I was asking for any correlations of the SDA view of 'soul-death' and the UB's teaching on it, plus more info. on how many persons of SDA background were involved with the dissemination of the Urantia Papers. - there appears to be some correlations with the theological concepts in the UB as conceptual-frames used. - i. e., Christ affiliation with 'Michael', 'soul-death', etc. Also the 'sleeping-subjects' background would be interesting, to see if anything in his 'subconscious' coloured the transmission process.

In any case,.....'soul-death' is very interesting and the UB provides a fair explanation of the 'disintegration' process, if a soul makes a final conscious choice for de-struction.


pj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top