-
Posts
-
Nigel Nunn wrote: . . . the 3rd was by Melchizedek via Abraham.
And there you go . . . that’s another place where the Bible doesn’t line up with TUB. The Bible says that Moses went up onto Mount Sinai and received the ten commandments directly from God. Not so as it turns out. There were only seven commandments and they came from Melchizedek who got them from Dalmatia and the two Edens. And that makes a lot more sense to me. There were no tablets written with the finger of God. What really happened is that there was a worship ceremony where people used their own fingers to mark tablets saying they would adhere to the Salem creed, which included the seven commandments. Now, that is much more believable to me than God coming out of the clouds on top of a mountain and writing them himself.
93:4.1-5 The ceremonies of the Salem worship were very simple. Every person who signed or marked the clay-tablet rolls of the Melchizedek church committed to memory, and subscribed to, the following belief:
1. I believe in El Elyon, the Most High God, the only Universal Father and Creator of all things.
2. I accept the Melchizedek covenant with the Most High, which bestows the favor of God on my faith, not on sacrifices and burnt offerings. 3. I promise to obey the seven commandments of Melchizedek and to tell the good news of this covenant with the Most High to all men.
And that was the whole of the creed of the Salem colony.
Here are the seven commandments:
93:4.7-13 1. You shall not serve any God but the Most High Creator of heaven and earth.
2. You shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal salvation.
3. You shall not bear false witness.
4. You shall not kill.
5. You shall not steal.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.
Now, doesn’t it seem odd that there is a commandment against killing? Even if the finger of God did write that commandment on a stone tablet, why would he do such a thing if killing is something that he himself likes to do to punish people who misbehave, or boys who call an old man baldy? Why would he ask humans not to do something that he does? And what about the disrespect thing going on there in #7? Why would he say not to disrespect someone when he himself disrespects men with defective testicles? It doesn’t make sense.
Just chiming in to add +1 to everything Bonita has said on this thread. I would think if anything in TUB would give pause to conservative Christians it would be the fact that TUB disputes the atonement! That is a HUGE departure from the Bible, and yet it makes perfect sense and is one of the things that convinced me TUB is true. Even as a child I was never willing to believe that a loving God would send his son to a planet to suffer and die, horribly, for all our sins.
188:4.8 (2017.3) When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
I’ll also go +1 to Keryn’s +1. I wish Chuck the very best. And while I appreciate the opportunity to provide some biblical “scholarship”, I should note first that Bonita has far greater knowledge and articulation regarding the Bible and many other evolutionary religious texts, and second that I abandoned the Bible long ago related to truth content when I discovered as a lad that most everything within the Bible directly contradicts the Jesusonian gospel. I found the Bible to be a compilation of fantasy, fiction, fable, and falsehood and left its study at 16 believing that there was no Adam and Eve, no Devil or war in heaven, no instant creation without evolution and billions of years of time, that there was no Red Sea crossing or Noah’s flood, no chosen people, no atonement or original sin, no damnation and hell fire or eternal suffering.
I had to reject all of that to believe the Jesusonian gospel that God is love and we his beloved children and we are safe in a friendly universe/kingdom we can join today without delay or death intervening first. Who can believe the Jesusonian gospel within the Bible and swallow the rest of camel whole? To quibble over the errors and inconsistancies of the Bible vs. the UB seems to be an exercise in straining gnats. Where does one begin in listing the errors of the Bible? I did go to the site chuck posted by link – very fundamentalist perspective to prove the Bible is true….every word….and without contradiction. That’s going to take some pretty fancy footwork IMO.
Interestingly, it was the UB that brought me back to the Bible again by providing a perspective and story that actually unifies much of the Bible by balancing between fact and fiction and fable and myth over the ages. But that’s my story on accepting, rejecting, and re-embracing with greater knowledge and understanding….according to the UB’s harmonization of history and reality.
Hi,
… not considering baptise in Catholic Church. I’ve been experiencing from 17 yrs old to 29 assists another institutionalyze Church whom The Old and New testament was our source of education.
Leaving this Church at 29 and encounter TUB around 32 yrs old …. both Church Catholic and Chrisitan work their purpose and participate forging a good soil for eventual seeds.As you mention Bradly about sticking on Bible’s perspective it didn’t allow a refreshment of spirit. Because, usually quotes from the Bible are put Under a glass dome and did not get a chance to improve thruths.
When I read or get in touch with old friends … they have so narrow and not up to date perspective.“Primitive” religion is a evolutive benchmark course and participate for progressive realities.
Bonita, please accept an apology. I missed a earlier post of yours. You have given me food for thought. Convert was the wrong example to use. What I was after was an objective view, much as a college professor would demand of a student or another professor from whom he wanted to know something of an academic nature. I was trying to hold you, and again I ask your pardon as I missed at least one of your posts before writing my own, to the rigid standard that I was held to in college or that one professor would hold another to if he was writing on a accadimic subject. I plan to go back and reread this entire thread to see what else I missed. If I am satisfied with what I read, and based on what I have so far I think I might be, then I wish to thank everyone who responded to my question. If I have anymore questions on this point, I’ll post them.
Just finished a book about explorer adventurer sir Hubert Wilkins and his involvement with TUB
he was involved with studying the papers with the forum as they were in process of being revealed.
just a few months after the revelation was published he commented about how he was amazed that he had such difficulty getting his friends and colleagues interested in the book.
He assumed the world would accept it with open arms because it just made so much sense.
with tongue in cheek conceded he and a few others in this local universe were the chosen ones to study and appreciate the papers. He also conceded with seriousness that its only going to draw a very limited type of intellect.
chucksmith1982 wrote: You have given me food for thought.Well I’m much relieved Chuck. Thank you for not bringing out the long knives and going for the duel. It would have been a bloody mess.
Gene wrote: He assumed the world would accept it with open arms because it just made so much sense.Most people aren’t interested in what makes sense. Let’s face it. Most folks live in their own little fantasy world and try like hell to get reality to bend to fit their fantasy. That’s called erroneous thinking. Unfortunately, it’s here to stay . . . at least for the foreseeable future.
19:1.14 In such a far-flung universe of universes there is always great danger of succumbing to the error of the circumscribed viewpoint, to the evil inherent in a segmentalized conception of reality and divinity.
Yes, also known as: temporary insanity.
Unfortunately, it’s not always so temporary. We have whole sections of society that suffer from this and the effect on social evolution is longer than temporary. And I’m not just talking about whackos here. Any social organization with an ideology not based on reality can fall into this category of erroneous thinking and cause lasting damage. Thank goodness for the Supreme though. He’s always trying to make lemonade.
Bonita… I like westerns. One… Two… Three… Draw! (grins like a manieac) Seriously though, after rereading the entire thread I found several posts that I’d missed. It makes sense that the revelators would be talking about a different god in this passage. If Joshua was indeed written at a later date, who knows what really happened anyway?
If Joshua was indeed written at a later date, who knows what really happened anyway?
Scholars say that Jericho was destroyed around 1400 B.C.. Also, scholars estimate that the book of Joshua was written around 586 B.C., during the Babylonian exile. Likewise, 1 Kings was written sometime between 562 B.C. and the Babylonian exile. And we also know that the records are always written by the victors who like to embellish their victories. That being said, the Hebrews didn’t have their own written language until about 900 B.C..
74:8.9 The Hebrews had no written language in general usage for a long time after they reached Palestine. They learned the use of an alphabet from the neighboring Philistines, who were political refugees from the higher civilization of Crete. The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., and having no written language until such a late date, they had several different stories of creation in circulation, but after the Babylonian captivity they inclined more toward accepting a modified Mesopotamian version.
96:5.2 There is so little on record of the great work of Moses because the Hebrews had no written language at the time of the exodus. The record of the times and doings of Moses was derived from the traditions extant more than one thousand years after the death of the great leader.
Concerning the fact that the Hebrew’s written language originated in Crete, this is from the Ancient History Encyclopedia:
The Phoenicians did not create the alphabet, they marketed it; taking it apparently from Egypt and Crete, they imported it piecemeal to Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, and exported it to every city on the Mediterranean; they were the middlemen, not the producers, of the alphabet. By the time of Homer the Greeks were taking over this Phoenician – or the allied Aramaic – alphabet, and were calling it by the Semitic names of the first two letters, Alpha, Beta; Hebrew Aleph, Beth.
chucksmith1982 wrote:
“Interesting. Verry interesting indeed.”
Agreed. I find Bonita to be one of this little world’s most truly helpful (and wonderful) resources
chucksmith1982 wrote:
“Interesting. Verry interesting indeed.” Agreed. I find Bonita to be one of this little world’s most truly helpful (and wonderful) resources
Thank you Nigel and Gene, you’re encouraging me. I found this quote interesting.
172:1.3 Jesus talked with Simon about Joshua of old, whose namesake he was, and recited how Joshua and the Israelites had come up to Jerusalem through Jericho. In commenting on the legend of the walls of Jericho falling down, Jesus said: “I am not concerned with such walls of brick and stone; but I would cause the walls of prejudice, self-righteousness, and hate to crumble before this preaching of the Father’s love for all men.”
If Jesus was so unconcerned with Jericho’s walls of brick and stone, why would God care about them back in 1400 B.C.? I think the idea that God brought them down is a myth, or it could be a metaphor for tearing down evil, like the walls of prejudice, self-righteousness and hate. I think TUB also says that God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a myth, or possibly another metaphor for destroying the evil of retarded morals and ethics.
93:6.7 This was an appearance of fact, notwithstanding its association with the subsequently fabricated narratives relating to the natural destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And these legends of the happenings of those days indicate how retarded were the morals and ethics of even so recent a time.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.