-
Posts
-
Don’t even sweat that, Midi. We are allowed to post any topic related to TUB with the exception of channeling.
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
B.B., it would seem that Bonita’s last statement, underlined above, was really not directed towards you but to me, even if she says otherwise, I admittedly have been the one who is preoccupied with Lucifer and the Rebellion, and have contributed my opinion far more then you have, where I have in your other thread and this one continued to indicate that if it was not for the priori knowledge or understanding given the name Lucifer, that the name by itself, has convicted the name, before any evidence could be presented, as I have stated that given the information regarding Lucifer, in the UB has not presented any evidence which could convict Lucifer of any wrong doing, based on the UB narration alone. Therefore, by using the name Lucifer in the UB, whether there is any actual historic evidence through alternate names or reference, would have been a sentence of death even prior to a selection of a jury. Therefore, your threads opening premise was destined to fail but was of sound reasoning and being that your defense it true, it was actually manifested by my actions. So, don’t take what Bonita said as personally against you, because she is combining all of her dislikes, even the raping of angels, goes back to Scott (TUB), all lumped into one, or anyone that fits the bill.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: TUB still recognizes them as “revelations” and goes so far as to reference them. There are many narratives of scriptures resembling revelations in TUB.But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.Brooklyn_born wrote: These revelations were recorded as scripture.Yes, and most scripture is myth, folklore and descriptions of personal religious experiences. None of it is EPOCHAL, as you claim.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Yes my position is there are four types of reading of revelation: literal, figurative, personal and spiritual, as I believe is outlined in TUB.I think you can read scripture figuratively, but revelation is different from scripture. Scripture, being mythical, is packed with metaphor. Metaphor requires interpretation but not necessarily personal religious experience. Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind. Revelation, on the other hand, is experiential and requires a superconscious level of thinking, a level in contact with the presence of indwelling Deity.
This is why, right there in the beginning of the UB, we are told that it is vital that the indwelling Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth play a part in revealing the written word as the authors intended. If you do not use the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth, if you insist on using lower levels of the human mind, then there is a high likelihood that there will be no genuine revelation of truth, but rather something like swill fostered by the human propensity for magical, mythical thinking. And that is precisely what I think is happening here with the idea that midwayers hijacked Church history and morphed it into revelation.There are a lot of similarities in history. Do you remember when JFK died and how some people believed that it was an direct replay of the Lincoln assassination pointing out all the similarities as proof that history repeated itself almost exactly? But when you dig down to reality, it turns out that most of the similarities were not true but facts spun and twisted in such a way as to fit the model in the person’s head who created it. I think you can do that with scripture too. And obviously some people want to do that with revelation as well.Yes there is truth just about everywhere, but just because something appears to be diachronically related to something else doesn’t make it true.But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.TUB calls it Epochal revelation; and they were recorded.Yes, and most scripture is myth, folklore and descriptions of personal religious experiences. None of it is EPOCHAL, as you claim.These scriptures are a presentation of revelations of earlier epochs. Here is what we are told of one in particular:.3. “Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ..Those scriptures contain third revelation of truth. Are scriptures corrupt? Yes.I think you can read scripture figuratively, but revelation is different from scripture.Here is a revelation that says otherwise:.“The surest safeguard for the creature throughout the long struggle to attain the Father, during this time when inherent conditions make such attainment impossible, is tenaciously to hold on to the truth-fact of the Father’s presence in his Sons. Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally, the Father and the Sons are one. It is a fact: He who has seen a Creator Son has seen the Father.”Scripture, being mythical, is packed with metaphor. Metaphor requires interpretation but not necessarily personal religious experience.Scripture contains revelation. Here is an example:.“The truth about the Universal Father had begun to dawn upon mankind when the prophet said: “You, God, are alone; there is none beside you. You have created the heaven and the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts; you preserve and control them. By the Sons of God were the universes made. The Creator covers himself with light as with a garment and stretches out the heavens as a curtain.” Only the concept of the Universal Father—one God in the place of many gods— enabled mortal man to comprehend the Father as divine creator and infinite controller.”.That was a revelation reported by scripture.Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind. Revelation, on the other hand, is experiential and requires a superconscious level of thinking, a level in contact with the presence of indwelling Deity.Again, there are four approaches to revelation: (1) literal, (2) figurative, (3) personal and (4) spiritual, as they are listed in the following:.“The surest safeguard for the creature throughout the long struggle to attain the Father, during this time when inherent conditions make such attainment impossible, is tenaciously to hold on to the truth-fact of the Father’s presence in his Sons. Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally, the Father and the Sons are one. It is a fact: He who has seen a Creator Son has seen the Father.”This is why, right there in the beginning of the UB, we are told that it is vital that the indwelling Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth play a part in revealing the written word as the authors intended. If you do not use the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth, if you insist on using lower levels of the human mind, then there is a high likelihood that there will be no genuine revelation of truth, but rather something like swill fostered by the human propensity for magical, mythical thinking. And that is precisely what I think is happening here with the idea that midwayers hijacked Church history and morphed it into revelation.I do not think figurative, spiritual and personal are “lower levels of the human mind.” Otherwise we would be warned by the revelators of those approaches.There are a lot of similarities in history. Do you remember when JFK died and how some people believed that it was an direct replay of the Lincoln assassination pointing out all the similarities as proof that history repeated itself almost exactly?Your example has no bearing on St. Lucifer of Cagliara and Lucifer of Satania.But when you dig down to reality, it turns out that most of the similarities were not true but facts spun and twisted in such a way as to fit the model in the person’s head who created it.I see glaring similarities between the Church’s history on St. Lucifer and Lucifer of Satania.I think you can do that with scripture too. And obviously some people want to do that with revelation as well.This thread wan not dedicated to drawing parallels between scripture and revelation, although the discussion at times had gone that direction. I sought to do a comparative analysis between St. Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of Satania. I will revisit that soon.Yes there is truth just about everywhere, but just because something appears to be diachronically related to something else doesn’t make it true.I agree.BB
But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.
How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950’s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
Epochal – adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of an epoch.
2. extremely important, significant, or influential.Epoch – noun
1. a particular period of time marked by distinctive features, events, etc. . . .
2. the beginning of a distinctive period in the history of anything . . .
3. a point of time distinguished by a particular event or state of affairs; a memorable date . . .
4. Geology . any of several divisions of a geologic period during which a geologic series is formed. Compare age (def 12).
5. Astronomy . an arbitrarily fixed instant of time or date, usually the beginning of a century or half century, used as a reference in giving the elements of a planetary orbit or the like . the mean longitude of a planet as seen from the sun at such an instant or date.
6. Physics. the displacement from zero at zero time of a body undergoing simple harmonic motion.Exactly, Midi. Revelations reflect time periods, hence, the term “epochal.” Scriptures would be included as they were the vehicles by which those revelations were expressed.How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch. Epochal – adjective1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of an epoch. 2. extremely important, significant, or influential. Epoch – noun
1. a particular period of time marked by distinctive features, events, etc. . . . 2. the beginning of a distinctive period in the history of anything . . . 3. a point of time distinguished by a particular event or state of affairs; a memorable date . . . 4. Geology . any of several divisions of a geologic period during which a geologic series is formed. Compare age (def 12). 5. Astronomy . an arbitrarily fixed instant of time or date, usually the beginning of a century or half century, used as a reference in giving the elements of a planetary orbit or the like . the mean longitude of a planet as seen from the sun at such an instant or date. 6. Physics. the displacement from zero at zero time of a body undergoing simple harmonic motion.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: TUB calls it Epochal revelation; they were recorded.Could you give me the exact quote in the UB where it says that the New Testament is an epochal revelation or that the Epic of Gilgamesh is an epochal revelation? Just because something is recorded doesn’t make it epochal. If that were the case, today’s newspaper would be epochal. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word epochal as used in the UB.
Records, particularly those referred to as scripture, are not epochal. They may have been recorded during a particular epoch and represent the thought of that epoch, but that does not make those scriptures either epochal or revelatory. The UB describes scripture as letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems and chronicles that represent a certain phase of human moral wisdom. But just because they were recorded does not make them epochal revelations.
88:2.9 But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief’s fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a “sacred book.”
Brooklyn_born wrote: His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.Exactly! Poor Melchizedek. His teachings were watered down and commingled, no longer considered to be revelation. They were gobbled up by evolutionary religion and turned into theology rather than revelation. Theology and revelation are not the same thing. A commingled theologic system is NOT an epochal revelation. I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding the difference between revelation and sacred writings. They are not the same thing.
Brooklyn_born wrote: That was a revelation reported by scripture.Dude, it’s a personal revelation recorded in scripture. It is not epochal. One person made that realization by grace of his indwelling Adjuster and shared it. Other’s may have pondered that idea deeply, and as a result, had a similar personal religious experience, aka personal revelation. That happens. But when the UB uses the words epochal revelation, they are referring to visitations of persons of Deity, or in the case of the UB, writings by persons of Deity, who bring with them new illuminations of truth. That truth is meant to become incorporated into the experience of humans. Each human must recognize the revelation for him/herself using their indwelling Spirit. All revelation is made available to the human mind by the indwelling Spirit. Otherwise, it is not revelation. Even the UB, written revelation, does not become personal revelation until it has been made available to the soul by the Adjuster and subsequently recognized by the human mind as such.
Take for instance the realization by Peter that Jesus was the Son of God. That truth was revealed to him by his indwelling Adjuster, and finally recognized by his human mind so that he could answer the Master when he asked, “But who say you that I am?”
157:3.5-6 When Jesus had listened to this report, he drew himself upon his feet, and looking down upon the twelve sitting about him in a semicircle, with startling emphasis he pointed to them with a sweeping gesture of his hand and asked, “But who say you that I am?” There was a moment of tense silence. The twelve never took their eyes off the Master, and then Simon Peter, springing to his feet, exclaimed: “You are the Deliverer, the Son of the living God.” And the eleven sitting apostles arose to their feet with one accord, thereby indicating that Peter had spoken for all of them. When Jesus had beckoned them again to be seated, and while still standing before them, he said: “This has been revealed to you by my Father. The hour has come when you should know the truth about me. But for the time being I charge you that you tell this to no man. Let us go hence.”
Brooklyn_born wrote:“The surest safeguard for the creature throughout the long struggle to attain the Father, during this time when inherent conditions make such attainment impossible, is tenaciously to hold on to the truth-fact of the Father’s presence in his Sons. Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally, the Father and the Sons are one. It is a fact: He who has seen a Creator Son has seen the Father.”You keep using this quote as proof that written revelation has to be read literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally. But that is not what the quote says. What can be taken literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally is the truth-fact that the Father and Son are ONE. It does not say anything about reading revelatory texts or scripture. They are talking about an idea, a concept, that no matter how you look at it, from what angle you choose to think about it, the truth-fact remains a truth-fact. You can think this idea upside down and inside out, backwards and forwards from here to Timbuktu and still come up with the same conclusion. This quote is not referring to how you should read the UB. It’s referring to the many different ways you can think about the Father and Son being ONE.
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think figurative, spiritual and personal are “lower levels of the human mind.” Otherwise we would be warned by the revelators of those approaches.I did not say that. I said: “ Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind.” Spiritual reading, I would hope, involves reflective meditative thinking, which involves the soul and the Adjuster in the process. That is not the adjutant-level mind. And we are warned about taking lower mind approaches to religion. It’s called mysticism. We are warned a great deal about that.
Brooklyn_born wrote:Your example has no bearing on St. Lucifer of Cagliara and Lucifer of Satania. I see glaring similarities between the Church’s history on St. Lucifer and Lucifer of Satania.Yeah. And my house is similar to the one next door. So what! If the authors of the UB chose St. Lucifer (who some believe was never a saint), as the model for the anti-saint Lucifer, then who was the model for the Michaels? Do you think that because the name is the same as St. Michael, that St. Michael the archangel was the model for our Creator Son? (Incidentally, St. Michael was an angel mentioned in Daniel, scripture written by a Jew for Jews, the Jews you claim had no concept of angels. But I digress.)Brooklyn_born wrote: I sought to do a comparative analysis between St. Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of Satania. I will revisit that soon.And I think you should also investigate what St. Lucifer believed in. I’m more than certain that his beliefs had nothing in common with the anti-saint Lucifer. If the authors of the UB wanted to use the saint as the model for the anti-saint, then they should have something in common other than name and falling from grace.
How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
World War II and the Korean War happened in the same epoch as the Fifth Epochal Revelation. So are all the letters, chronicles, laws, poems, movies, books, newspapers, etc. recorded about those wars also epochal revelations? Just because sacred writings appeared within a given epoch doesn’t make them revelatory. They are included within a historic epic and they have historic value, but they are NOT revelatory according to the definition of revelation we are given in the UB.
Some words have more than one meaning and I think it is important when discussing the UB that we come to some level of agreement on what the authors of the UB intended when using those words. Epochal revelation is one of them. Just because the New Testament was written in the epoch following Jesus’ revelatory sojourn on Earth doesn’t mean that it is an epochal revelation. Just because some people, when reading the New Testament have personal religious experiences considered revelatory, still does not make the New Testament an epochal revelation. An epochal revelation should be considered a revelation for ALL people during the entire time of a given planetary epoch.
The UB defines only five epochal revelations and they are all initiated by the presence of a celestial person who came to teach and reveal truth. The UB is the first non-person, but it is written by celestial persons with the same intent to teach and reveal truth. Why this epochal revelation is different we can only speculate, but it is my assertion that it is designed for us to learn how to think in such a way that makes it easier to find the Spirit within us rather than get all tangled up in metaphor, allegory and mystical dreams.
Bonita wrote: But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood. Midi replies: How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
Me here: There are two distinct uses of the term “epochal” in the UB. Midi speaks here of the Mortal Epochs of planetary evolution – not epochal revelation – which has only occurred 5 times in our history. Epochal revelations are a normal sequence of occurrence on a “normal” planet in time and space. Urantia has a very unique history and lives within 3-4 mortal epochs simultaneously today….please read Paper 52 for a full description of both the normal and the Urantia progress on a planetary basis. We’ve had two failed Revelations of Universal Reality – the Prince joined the rebellion and Adam and Eve defaulted. And we’ve had two since then in the personages and teachings of Machiventa and Michael. The UB is the 5th.
While it is true that the teachings in all 5 which survive and carry forward are continuation of epochal revelation by some perspective, it is also true that those records were often written long after the teacher and the teachings were delivered and inherently distorted, edited, and rewritten by those who were not present as witness or participant. There are no records by the hand of ANY prior revelator. And the NT is NOT the teachings of Michael but the teachings ABOUT Jesus and his sacrificial role in atonement (a falsehood). The gospel OF Jesus, the 4th Epochal Revelation, is alive and restated to every ear who hears the Spirit of Truth but it is NOT a written record. While it is true that the genius of the Master to teach by stories did indeed get included in fairly good form in the NT and I certainly discovered the Jesusonian Gospel within the Paulinian Doctrine as delivered by the hands of Roman priests and emporers, it is inaccurate to say that any part of any human authored work actually is or represents an Epochal Revelation today. The 5th is the first and only written Epochal Revelation…..that is if one were to believe the claims made BY this gift (which is NOT authored by any human….again, if one believes the claims made by the text itself.
(1007.4) 92:4.4 There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance. These were as follows:
(1007.5) 92:4.5 1. The Dalamatian teachings. The true concept of the First Source and Center was first promulgated on Urantia by the one hundred corporeal members of Prince Caligastia’s staff. This expanding revelation of Deity went on for more than three hundred thousand years until it was suddenly terminated by the planetary secession and the disruption of the teaching regime. Except for the work of Van, the influence of the Dalamatian revelation was practically lost to the whole world. Even the Nodites had forgotten this truth by the time of Adam’s arrival. Of all who received the teachings of the one hundred, the red men held them longest, but the idea of the Great Spirit was but a hazy concept in Amerindian religion when contact with Christianity greatly clarified and strengthened it.
(1007.6) 92:4.6 2. The Edenic teachings. Adam and Eve again portrayed the concept of the Father of all to the evolutionary peoples. The disruption of the first Eden halted the course of the Adamic revelation before it had ever fully started. But the aborted teachings of Adam were carried on by the Sethite priests, and some of these truths have never been entirely lost to the world. The entire trend of Levantine religious evolution was modified by the teachings of the Sethites. But by 2500 B.C. mankind had largely lost sight of the revelation sponsored in the days of Eden.
(1007.7) 92:4.7 3. Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.
(1008.1) 92:4.8 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.
(1008.2) 92:4.9 5. 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.
Bradly, here is a simple example to illustrate how I approach revelations…
Revelation: “The Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder.”
1) Literal: Father is the creator of all that is. He is the originator and center of all that exist. He is creator, controller and upholder.
2) Figurative: In math, Father is the number ‘1’ and producer of all numbers. 1 is the originator of all real numbers. All numbers are derived from 1 whether added or taken away or halved, etc… 1 upholds their mathematical function.
3) Spiritual: Father as Deity, in second and third persons, is the originator of the spiritual world. Before time and space there was spirituality. In these three persons is found liaison of spiritual ministries that conspire to raise us into spiritual beings.
4) Personal: I see Universal Father in many of the acts of my own father.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: Exactly, Midi. Revelations reflect time periods, hence, the term “epochal.”That’s exactly backwards. Time periods, or epochs, reflect the revelations of truth. Each epochal revelation affected the epoch in which it was presented and that effect is reflected in the writings of the people who were affected by the revelation.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Scriptures would be included as they were the vehicles by which those revelations were expressed.
The vehicle by which the Fourth Epochal Revelation was expressed is Jesus. The scriptures were a reaction to Jesus’ epochal revelation and are included within the epoch, but they also include reactions from previous epochal revelations. They build upon one another.
Bradly, here is a simple example to illustrate how I approach revelations…
Revelation: “The Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder.”
1) Literal: Father is the creator of all that is. He is the originator and center of all that exist. He is creator, controller and upholder. 2) Figurative: In math, Father is the number ’1′ and producer of all numbers. 1 is the originator of all real numbers. All numbers are derived from 1 whether added or taken away or halved, etc… 1 upholds their mathematical function. 3) Spiritual: Father as Deity, in second and third persons, is the originator of the spiritual world. Before time and space there was spirituality. In these three persons is found liaison of spiritual ministries that conspire to raise us into spiritual beings. 4) Personal: I see Universal Father in many of the acts of my own father.
How is #1 different from #3?
There are no records by the hand of ANY prior revelator. And the NT is NOT the teachings of Michael but the teachings ABOUT Jesus and his sacrificial role in atonement (a falsehood). The gospel OF Jesus, the 4th Epochal Revelation, is alive and restated to every ear who hears the Spirit of Truth but it is NOT a written record.
Exactly RIGHT.
Could you give me the exact quote in the UB where it says that the New Testament is an epochal revelationIt won’t say “New Testament is an epochal revelation” However, the revelators recognize that the New Testament is a recording of 4th epochal revelation:.2 “After the people had asked a few questions, Jesus spoke another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man sowed in his field. Now a mustard seed is the least of seeds, but when it is full grown, it becomes the greatest of all herbs and is like a tree so that the birds of heaven are able to come and rest in the branches thereof.””.Those parables are found in the New Testament. Agreed?.They then go on to say the following:.15 “…the grain of mustard seed; and now I declare that it is like the seed of the living being, which, from generation to generation, while it remains the same living seed, unfailingly unfolds itself in new manifestations and grows acceptably in channels of new adaptation to the peculiar needs and conditions of each successive generation. The revelation I have made to you is a living revelation…”.So we see that some revelatory items of the 4th epochal revelation originally were recorded in the New Testament.or that the Epic of Gilgamesh is an epochal revelation?This will require time on my part as I will have to comb through the books to retrieve the info.Just because something is recorded doesn’t make it epochal.If it is a revelation recorded during a particular epoch then it belongs to that “epochal revelation.”If that were the case, today’s newspaper would be epochal.If the newspaper contains revelation for the masses then yes it would be included. I think there is a clause in TUB stating that some of the revelations would be in need of revision. Anyhow, newspapers do not contain that kind of revelation. That is not what they is designed to do. Scripture, on the other hand, is designed to disseminate revelation to the masses.I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word epochal as used in the UB. Records, particularly those referred to as scripture, are not epochal.They are a revelation dispensed to mankind in their relative time. That would qualify as epochal.They may have been recorded during a particular epoch and represent the thought of that epoch, but that does not make those scriptures either epochal or revelatory.They are quoted in TUB.The UB describes scripture as letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems and chronicles that represent a certain phase of human moral wisdom. But just because they were recorded does not make them epochal revelations.I provided you with a passage from TUB which tells us that revelation was commingled letters, laws, legends, etc… .88:2.9 But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief’s fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a “sacred book.”
The Bible is a “sacred book.” But the Bible consists of many scriptures. You have to treat each scripture individually. Perhaps me saying that the New Testament is epochal revelation is confusing the issue. So I will be more measured; there are scriptures in the New Testament that are revelation.
Exactly! Poor Melchizedek. His teachings were watered down and commingled, no longer considered to be revelation. They were gobbled up by evolutionary religion and turned into theology rather than revelation. Theology and revelation are not the same thing. A commingled theologic system is NOT an epochal revelation.Again, you will find revelations in these theological systems. Yes, they have been corrupted, being commingled with other than, but the revelations still are there. I provided an example where Jesus’ words, first presented in the New Testament, are reproduced in the Jesus’ papers.I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding the difference between revelation and sacred writings.I understand the difference. I think you fail to see the fact that sacred writings contain revelation besides other items.Dude, it’s a personal revelation recorded in scripture. It is not epochal.It is a part of epochal revelation as it is LISTED in the revelation papers and expounded on within epochal context.One person made that realization by grace of his indwelling Adjuster and shared it. Other’s may have pondered that idea deeply, and as a result, had a similar personal religious experience, aka personal revelation.this is what we are told:7 2. “Era of the Melchizedek missionaries. Urantia religion was in no small measure regenerated by the efforts of those teachers who were commissioned by Machiventa Melchizedek when he lived and taught at Salem almost two thousand years before Christ. These missionaries proclaimed faith as the price of favor with God, and their teachings, though unproductive of any immediately appearing religions, nevertheless formed the foundations on which later teachers of truth were to build the religions of Urantia.”The above is the 3rd epochal revelation. We are told that those revelations “formed the foundations on which later teachers of truth were to build the religions of Urantia.” I think it is safe to say the revelations were recorded as scripture.That happens. But when the UB uses the words epochal revelation, they are referring to visitations of persons of Deity, or in the case of the UB, writings by persons of Deity, who bring with them new illuminations of truth. That truth is meant to become incorporated into the experience of humans.It has to be RECORDED. There is no getting around it. All epochal revelations are recorded, including the 5th in the form of “Urantia BOOK.”Each human must recognize the revelation for him/herself using their indwelling Spirit. All revelation is made available to the human mind by the indwelling Spirit.What is the purpose of the Book or written word then?Otherwise, it is not revelation. Even the UB, written revelation, does not become personal revelation until it has been made available to the soul by the Adjuster and subsequently recognized by the human mind as such.I see the disconnect now. Substitute everywhere I say “revelation” with “written revelation.” Perhaps that could clear it up.You keep using this quote as proof that written revelation has to be read literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally. But that is not what the quote says. What can be taken literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally is the truth-fact that the Father and Son are ONE.“Father and son are one”…. however you want to express it; as a thought or as the written word. You can view it or read it literally, figuratively, spiritually or personally.
It does not say anything about reading revelatory texts or scripture.
TUB does not tell us how to read the content of its pages either. Yet we read it. I don’t get your point. The revelator shows us how that statement or ‘idea’ could be approached in four different ways.
They are talking about an idea, a concept, that no matter how you look at it, from what angle you choose to think about it, the truth-fact remains a truth-fact.
All ideas are represented as written statements so we can “READ” them. or how else could those ideas be communicated?
You can think this idea upside down and inside out, backwards and forwards from here to Timbuktu and still come up with the same conclusion. This quote is not referring to how you should read the UB. It’s referring to the many different ways you can think about the Father and Son being ONE.
That idea can be viewed in four different ways. Ideas in TUB can be read in the same manner. I see nothing wrong with that approach seeing as there is precedence for it.
If the authors of the UB chose St. Lucifer (who some believe was never a saint), as the model for the anti-saint Lucifer, then who was the model for the Michaels?I never said all narratives in TUB are based on some historical event. I said the one on Lucifer may have been based, in part, on the life of St. Lucifer.Do you think that because the name is the same as St. Michael, that St. Michael the archangel was the model for our Creator Son? (Incidentally, St. Michael was an angel mentioned in Daniel, scripture written by a Jew for Jews, the Jews you claim had no concept of angels. But I digress.)There is a scripture that speaks on the bestowal career of Jesus. I mentioned this earlier.BB
That’s exactly backwards. Time periods, or epochs, reflect the revelations of truth.?? You want to see it from that perspective fine. I see it from the other end. No biggie. Still the same message.Each epochal revelation affected the epoch in which it was presented and that effect is reflected in the writings of the people who were affected by the revelation.Bottom line revelation and epoch go hand in hand.
The vehicle by which the Fourth Epochal Revelation was expressed is Jesus. The scriptures were a reaction to Jesus’ epochal revelation and are included within the epoch, but they also include reactions from previous epochal revelations. They build upon one another.
ok it is a “reaction.” Same difference. same message.
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.