The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
blood-free atonement........
blood-free atonement........
But what if it could be proven that the 'eucharistic' passages in the Lord's Supper account are 'interpolations', and that Jesus did not say such things. It would at least be intellectually honest to research this to see if such a view is tenable, given the evidence. I still think that Paul might have been the originator of the Eucharist, since he claims he received it from the Lord...in which case his account to the Corinthians was used to put extra words into Jesus mouth during the Lord's supper event in the synoptic gospels. It bears a high probability that later compilers and scribes of the NT were pro-Paul (serving a Gentile readership).....so would use 'creative license' in doctoring some passages making them more consonant with Paul's gospel.
The Eucharist - Its Origin (Edgar Jones - holds that Paul is the originator of the Eucharist, and sets forth the evidence to support this view)
The Urantia papers record this at the Lord's supper -
179:5.1 As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the "cup of blessing," he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: "Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father's eternal kingdom."
179:5.2 The apostles all sensed that something out of the ordinary was transpiring as they drank of this cup of blessing in profound reverence and perfect silence. The old Passover commemorated the emergence of their fathers from a state of racial slavery into individual freedom; now the Master was instituting a new remembrance supper as a symbol of the new dispensation wherein the enslaved individual emerges from the bondage of ceremonialism and selfishness into the spiritual joy of the brotherhood and fellowship of the liberated faith sons of the living God.
179:5.3 When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: "Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life." When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down.
179:5.4 In instituting this remembrance supper, the Master, as was always his habit, resorted to parables and symbols. He employed symbols because he wanted to teach certain great spiritual truths in such a manner as to make it difficult for his successors to attach precise interpretations and definite meanings to his words. In this way he sought to prevent successive generations from crystallizing his teaching and binding down his spiritual meanings by the dead chains of tradition and dogma. In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual's concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form; neither did he desire to limit the believer's spiritual imagination by formally cramping it. He rather sought to set man's reborn soul free upon the joyous wings of a new and living spiritual liberty.
- UB paper 179
You'll note no mention in this account of a 'blood of the new covenant' or any blood being shed for the 'remission of sins'. The bread and wine were part of a typical Jewish meal, and in this case while done in conjunction with the Passover meal,...was a sacrament of remembrance signifying the kingdom of 'God', that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again with them, until the kingdom had fully come. 'Breaking of bread' was common with the early followers of Jesus, ...there is no reason to assume this had any 'eucharistic' elements which Paul claimed to receive from the Lord and introduce. One can certainly impose them into the religious ritual.
pj
blood-free atonement........
But what if it could be proven that the 'eucharistic' passages in the Lord's Supper account are 'interpolations', and that Jesus did not say such things. It would at least be intellectually honest to research this to see if such a view is tenable, given the evidence. I still think that Paul might have been the originator of the Eucharist, since he claims he received it from the Lord...in which case his account to the Corinthians was used to put extra words into Jesus mouth during the Lord's supper event in the synoptic gospels. It bears a high probability that later compilers and scribes of the NT were pro-Paul (serving a Gentile readership).....so would use 'creative license' in doctoring some passages making them more consonant with Paul's gospel.
The Eucharist - Its Origin (Edgar Jones - holds that Paul is the originator of the Eucharist, and sets forth the evidence to support this view)
The Urantia papers record this at the Lord's supper -
179:5.1 As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the "cup of blessing," he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: "Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father's eternal kingdom."
179:5.2 The apostles all sensed that something out of the ordinary was transpiring as they drank of this cup of blessing in profound reverence and perfect silence. The old Passover commemorated the emergence of their fathers from a state of racial slavery into individual freedom; now the Master was instituting a new remembrance supper as a symbol of the new dispensation wherein the enslaved individual emerges from the bondage of ceremonialism and selfishness into the spiritual joy of the brotherhood and fellowship of the liberated faith sons of the living God.
179:5.3 When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: "Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life." When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down.
179:5.4 In instituting this remembrance supper, the Master, as was always his habit, resorted to parables and symbols. He employed symbols because he wanted to teach certain great spiritual truths in such a manner as to make it difficult for his successors to attach precise interpretations and definite meanings to his words. In this way he sought to prevent successive generations from crystallizing his teaching and binding down his spiritual meanings by the dead chains of tradition and dogma. In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual's concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form; neither did he desire to limit the believer's spiritual imagination by formally cramping it. He rather sought to set man's reborn soul free upon the joyous wings of a new and living spiritual liberty.
- UB paper 179
You'll note no mention in this account of a 'blood of the new covenant' or any blood being shed for the 'remission of sins'. The bread and wine were part of a typical Jewish meal, and in this case while done in conjunction with the Passover meal,...was a sacrament of remembrance signifying the kingdom of 'God', that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again with them, until the kingdom had fully come. 'Breaking of bread' was common with the early followers of Jesus, ...there is no reason to assume this had any 'eucharistic' elements which Paul claimed to receive from the Lord and introduce. One can certainly impose them into the religious ritual.
pj
Last edited:
Melchizedek used bread and wine as a substitute for blood sacrifice when he made the covenant with Abraham.
"Genesis 14:18
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine."
The original gospel was rejected by Israel, so Pagan Rome adopted it and interpreted it according to their preexisting beliefs.
Tarsus was a hotbed of the Mystery religion, Paul, a Roman citizen grew up in Tarsus. Untaught by Jesus, not a member of the original 12, Paul brought his own ideas to his charismatic and very influential teaching before the first gospel was written.
Caino
"Genesis 14:18
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine."
The original gospel was rejected by Israel, so Pagan Rome adopted it and interpreted it according to their preexisting beliefs.
Tarsus was a hotbed of the Mystery religion, Paul, a Roman citizen grew up in Tarsus. Untaught by Jesus, not a member of the original 12, Paul brought his own ideas to his charismatic and very influential teaching before the first gospel was written.
Caino
Aimiel
Well-known member
It couldn't, since these men who wrote the New Testament surrendered their lives rather than recant the accounts of Truth which they wrote. Your understanding of Scripture and lack of faith in It is typical, as you accept what the enemy says without question. It shows where your loyalties are.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Paul's 'eucharist'........
Paul's 'eucharist'........
The Eucharist - Not from Jesus
Do your research - the 'eucharist' was a developed innovation, and 'formulated' by Paul which he claimed to receive 'from the Lord'. Also you don't know that the canonized gospels were actually written by the men they are ascribed to, and in many cases they are second hand reports with some creative embellishments. My loyalties are with honest research, open investigation, and personal discernment and exploration in these matters. Its a wonderful journey
pj
Paul's 'eucharist'........
The Eucharist - Not from Jesus
Do your research - the 'eucharist' was a developed innovation, and 'formulated' by Paul which he claimed to receive 'from the Lord'. Also you don't know that the canonized gospels were actually written by the men they are ascribed to, and in many cases they are second hand reports with some creative embellishments. My loyalties are with honest research, open investigation, and personal discernment and exploration in these matters. Its a wonderful journey
pj
Last edited:
Aimiel
Well-known member
Obviously you haven't read the treatise on the Gospels written by Dr. Simon Greenleaf which I have shared on TOL many times...
http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Evangelists-Gospels-Examined-Evidence/dp/0825427479
He was a world-renowned expert on evidence and has taken all the evidence found in the New Testament and proven that the Gospels not only were written by the men whose names appear in the credits but that they are complete and honest accounts of what they saw and heard. You should do a little more research before you make your knee-jerk conclusions.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Evangelists-Gospels-Examined-Evidence/dp/0825427479
He was a world-renowned expert on evidence and has taken all the evidence found in the New Testament and proven that the Gospels not only were written by the men whose names appear in the credits but that they are complete and honest accounts of what they saw and heard. You should do a little more research before you make your knee-jerk conclusions.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
My former commentary and direct reference-article deals 'specifically' with the Eucharist NOT being from Jesus. - all the proofs, logics and presentation for this, which also confirms that it originated from Paul are clearly laid out.
The UP (urantia papers) agree in principle that Jesus used the 'bread' and 'wine' symbolically, ...the 'wine' being the cup of remembrance,....and the 'bread' symbolizing the word of 'God' and the 'life' of the Father & Son combined in the person of Jesus, as that which came down from heaven (here the 'incarnation' or the 'bestowal' of our Creator Son plays into it). This is all 'symbolic', being tokens representing spiritual meaning and analogy, essentially of man's communion with 'God', and the resulting 'eternal life' therefrom. The communion meal of remembrance does not have to include a concept of vicarious blood-atonement, which the papers and other schools of thought reject.
Concerning your articles above, there are just as many 'skeptical' reviews and critiques about the gospels validity as first-hand eye witness accounts (besides the dating of the gospels themselves).
When were the gospels written?
The UP is interesting in that it uses much of the gospel-narratives in Part 4, at least from which to expand and expound the teachings of Jesus from, since the revelators use the records of humanity from which to build upon.
pj
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Interesting that this 'bread' and 'wine' was a covenant meal prototype back then continuing to modern day Jewish meal traditions, which were later invested with various religious meanings and 'interpretations'.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
John 6:53-58
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Obviously, if you don't drink His Blood and eat His Flesh you have no life in you. These are Jesus' Words. Discounting what Scripture teaches is heresy, plain and simple.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Obviously, if you don't drink His Blood and eat His Flesh you have no life in you. These are Jesus' Words. Discounting what Scripture teaches is heresy, plain and simple.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Is the Marvel Universe one of the superuniverses? 'Cos if so, I need to find a way there to take out Deadpool before he makes his way here to wipe out our race, whom he calls "the Progenitors".
I'm a big Deadpool fan and all, but I don't want him killing me.
I'm a big Deadpool fan and all, but I don't want him killing me.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
This verse is dealt with in the former article links provided. Note that this verse of eating and drinking Jesus body are only found in John, and even still...they are to be taken symbolically,....as only the Spirit gives life. The 'bread' is the spiritual food, living word of 'God'....which Jesus is .....being a manifestation of 'God', and remember its his words which are spirit and life. No one eats the physical flesh or drinks the tangible blood of Jesus, although Catholicism may use this passage as a 'proof-text' for 'transubstantiation'. The tokens are symbolic and the Lord's Supper is a ritual-communion-meal of remembrance and thanksgiving, looking forward to the coming kingdom when all believers will drink the 'cup' anew in the New World.
There is the spiritual kingdom NOW in our midst....and the coming perfection of it more fully realized.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
If by the phrase: "dealt with," you mean to say, "explained away," then please be aware that God's Word has stood the test of time and will stand for eternity, no matter how much 'proof' your Urantia nonsense might reveal. It is darkness and darkness cannot every obscure light. Light trumps darkness every time. God has given us the victory over our enemies, every single power, principality and ruler of the darkness of this world... including the little tiny one who whispered the Urantia 'revelation' into the mind of it's author.
Aimiel
Well-known member
We drink His Blood and eat His Flesh symbolically, but as we live and move and have our very being in God because of the fact that His Spirit lives in us (Christians, not God-mockers such as Freelight and Caino) we show that His Blood runs through our veins. As we read His Word every single day and feed off of it (The Bread of Life is God's Holy Word) we partake of His Spirit, Who lives through us.
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Learn.....
Learn.....
I was speaking of the Edgar Jone's article - 'The Eucharist not from Jesus'. Traditional-orthodox Jewish customs and other schools also reject a 'blood-atonement' sacrifice associated with the ministry of the Messiah, or the 'Christ' as a means of 'salvation' or 'forgiveness of sins'. The cruel barbaric practice of animal and human sacrifice is unnecessary, especially in the dawning of a more advanced spiritually enlightened age.
All other UB passages on the Lord's Supper hold,...and agree that the essential 'communion' represented in the remembrance-meal is 'spiritual'.
Jesus in the UB wholly confers that his communion is a spiritual one, and the Lord's Supper is symbolic....so agrees with the above. We've shared the passages on this already. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of the papers knows its spiritual teaching emphasis. Since the Spirit of 'God' is 'Life' itself,....we can commune with that Spirit directly, - there is no need for a blood-atonement when 'God' is already ALWAYS present. A bloody sacrifice from a 'god-man' is not necessary to merit God's favor or love, since 'God' is already Our Heavenly Father and loves and forgives us when we re-turn to His Presence (via prayer, repentance, meditation, communion, worship).
pj
Learn.....
I was speaking of the Edgar Jone's article - 'The Eucharist not from Jesus'. Traditional-orthodox Jewish customs and other schools also reject a 'blood-atonement' sacrifice associated with the ministry of the Messiah, or the 'Christ' as a means of 'salvation' or 'forgiveness of sins'. The cruel barbaric practice of animal and human sacrifice is unnecessary, especially in the dawning of a more advanced spiritually enlightened age.
All other UB passages on the Lord's Supper hold,...and agree that the essential 'communion' represented in the remembrance-meal is 'spiritual'.
Jesus in the UB wholly confers that his communion is a spiritual one, and the Lord's Supper is symbolic....so agrees with the above. We've shared the passages on this already. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of the papers knows its spiritual teaching emphasis. Since the Spirit of 'God' is 'Life' itself,....we can commune with that Spirit directly, - there is no need for a blood-atonement when 'God' is already ALWAYS present. A bloody sacrifice from a 'god-man' is not necessary to merit God's favor or love, since 'God' is already Our Heavenly Father and loves and forgives us when we re-turn to His Presence (via prayer, repentance, meditation, communion, worship).
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
They may 'hold' sway with you and / or anyone who might think that there is a shred of Truth in Urantia but they don't stand up to The Holy Scriptures. The 'spiritually enlightened' are all Christian. The rest are in complete and utter darkness.
You and the author always mis-spell his name, because the guy described in Urantia is Jebus, NOT Jesus. :duh:
John Mortimer
New member
There is an interesting point to be made here, I feel.
But first......
I understand and agree with this completely.
Now as regards the "Mass" / "Holy Communion" being merely symbolic... I would say that consciousness has the power to make it literal. I would say there have been, (and possibly are still), Catholics for whom the Mass has been made literal. Consciousness does have this power.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
mental playground..............
mental playground..............
The UB presents God's abode in the very center of the Grand Universe....with 7 superuniverses surrounding the Isle of Paradise.
UB Fellowship
I used to collect Marvel Comics,....so enjoy entertainment for the mind. If one can imagine something, it 'exists' for them in some form, within some relational context, with the subconsciousness mind not being able to discern if its 'real' or 'imaginary',....if you want to dive into the question of what is 'real' or 'not'. One could just as well apply this recognition to religious myths, storys, analogies, metaphors, etc. - in any case the stories engage symbols, meanings, values. This goes for 'fiction', 'non-fiction' or 'science fiction',...its all mind-food.
While your comment above may be serious, tongue in cheek, or satirical.....you could just as well use the devil, satan or Lucifer as your 'arch-villian' in the cosmic drama and Jesus and the prophets (pick your 'avatar') as the 'super heros',...again...you can only relate to these in your mind first, and have no proof of them existing outside of your mind. Have fun
This is a platform for 'creative dialogue', education and expanding consciousness.....such is my craft. I use the papers as a platform for that,....its just a volume of information like any other textbook to convey/relate and communicate ideas/ideals using various conceptual frames and language tools.
4:4.1 God is the only stationary, self-contained, and changeless being in the whole universe of universes, having no outside, no beyond, no past, and no future. God is purposive energy (creative spirit) and absolute will, and these are self-existent and universal.
- Paper 4
There is one absolute reality.....all else is relative.
pj
mental playground..............
The UB presents God's abode in the very center of the Grand Universe....with 7 superuniverses surrounding the Isle of Paradise.
UB Fellowship
I used to collect Marvel Comics,....so enjoy entertainment for the mind. If one can imagine something, it 'exists' for them in some form, within some relational context, with the subconsciousness mind not being able to discern if its 'real' or 'imaginary',....if you want to dive into the question of what is 'real' or 'not'. One could just as well apply this recognition to religious myths, storys, analogies, metaphors, etc. - in any case the stories engage symbols, meanings, values. This goes for 'fiction', 'non-fiction' or 'science fiction',...its all mind-food.
While your comment above may be serious, tongue in cheek, or satirical.....you could just as well use the devil, satan or Lucifer as your 'arch-villian' in the cosmic drama and Jesus and the prophets (pick your 'avatar') as the 'super heros',...again...you can only relate to these in your mind first, and have no proof of them existing outside of your mind. Have fun
This is a platform for 'creative dialogue', education and expanding consciousness.....such is my craft. I use the papers as a platform for that,....its just a volume of information like any other textbook to convey/relate and communicate ideas/ideals using various conceptual frames and language tools.
4:4.1 God is the only stationary, self-contained, and changeless being in the whole universe of universes, having no outside, no beyond, no past, and no future. God is purposive energy (creative spirit) and absolute will, and these are self-existent and universal.
- Paper 4
There is one absolute reality.....all else is relative.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Love requires nothing but surrender........
Love requires nothing but surrender........
We must remember that the physical representations are recognized by the mind 'symbolically' and it could not be otherwise for anyone to know or relate to the 'elements' being used for whatever ritual. I don't imply that they are 'wholly' symbolic only.....but to the mind are taken that way as a means of 'relating'....in which they could be later 'transformed' into something more substantial,....so in this sense I agree with your mention of this. However,....we could nit-pick over the 'definition' or 'meaning' of 'literal'. I wont go there....since so much could be said about the power of consciousness as well as 'personal belief' or 'faith' in something. The UB's explanation of the so called 'eucharist' has been amply given. Blood-atonement is powerless and valueless in the final analysis as it regards man's communion with 'God' according to this revelation, although primitive belief in such may provide some religious comfort or solace.
pj
Love requires nothing but surrender........
We must remember that the physical representations are recognized by the mind 'symbolically' and it could not be otherwise for anyone to know or relate to the 'elements' being used for whatever ritual. I don't imply that they are 'wholly' symbolic only.....but to the mind are taken that way as a means of 'relating'....in which they could be later 'transformed' into something more substantial,....so in this sense I agree with your mention of this. However,....we could nit-pick over the 'definition' or 'meaning' of 'literal'. I wont go there....since so much could be said about the power of consciousness as well as 'personal belief' or 'faith' in something. The UB's explanation of the so called 'eucharist' has been amply given. Blood-atonement is powerless and valueless in the final analysis as it regards man's communion with 'God' according to this revelation, although primitive belief in such may provide some religious comfort or solace.
pj
John Mortimer
New member
By whose mind, though?
I don't agree. But moving on......
:thumb:
Well, in a way that's a pity, although I do realise it could push the thread into a siding.
Yes, I agree that the concept of blood atonement is powerless and valueless. But for some Catholics it's not about atonement. It's about receiving the life-force of the Christ. now you may say that is symbolic - but it is achieved by means of a literal conscious understanding of transubstantiation.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
as one believes.......
as one believes.......
Well,....any 'mind' capable of recognizing the 'symbols' and relating to what they represent. If want to say 'consciousness' is relating to these symbols and imbibing them back into itself as some kind of 'religious experence' or 'spiritual transfusion',...have at it
If the mind does not know what the 'bread' and 'wine' symbolizes or means,....how can it relate to it? Hence Jesus explaining it. Later religious meanings and interpretations were invested in the ritual.
We can save that topic for other threads, or where the UB expounds on such specifically. Purely non-dualistic perspectives can be shared in soon to be forthcoming threads on the subject.
Ok John - well keep the 'spiritual communion experience' of it,..as being beyond words.
pj
as one believes.......
Well,....any 'mind' capable of recognizing the 'symbols' and relating to what they represent. If want to say 'consciousness' is relating to these symbols and imbibing them back into itself as some kind of 'religious experence' or 'spiritual transfusion',...have at it
If the mind does not know what the 'bread' and 'wine' symbolizes or means,....how can it relate to it? Hence Jesus explaining it. Later religious meanings and interpretations were invested in the ritual.
Well, in a way that's a pity, although I do realise it could push the thread into a siding.
We can save that topic for other threads, or where the UB expounds on such specifically. Purely non-dualistic perspectives can be shared in soon to be forthcoming threads on the subject.
Ok John
- well keep the 'spiritual communion experience' of it,..as being beyond words.pj
- Status