-
Posts
-
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?
#1 is a literal reading in the strictest sense. #3 incorporates a spiritual component or expresses it within a spiritual context.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: It won’t say “New Testament is an epochal revelation”Okay. Let me make sure I get this right. Several pages back you said this:
Brooklyn_born wrote: Epochal Revelation and scripture are the same. TUB speaks of five. One of importance is the New Testament.Now, today, you WON’T say that the New Testament is an epochal revelation. But you did say so above. Does that mean you’ve changed your mind on that?Brooklyn_born wrote: So we see that some revelatory items of the 4th epochal revelation originally were recorded in the New Testament.No, the revelatory items of the Fourth Epochal Revelation were originally spoken and lived by Jesus. What some men wrote in the New Testament is not necessarily a faithful representation of what the Master said or did. Take your example above. I’ve reproduced the New Testament version followed by the UB version below:
Matthew 13:31-32 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”151:4.2 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.”There are only a few subtle differences between the two, but the differences are profound. In the NT version simply states that the kingdom of heaven grows and that it starts small and ends big enough for birds to perch in its branches. The UB sheds more light on the parable though. It repeats that the kingdom of heaven grows from small to large, but now we know that the “birds of heaven” are ABLE to REST in the branches. The difference is meant to explain that the kingdom of heaven is within the soul where the Adjuster, the bird of heaven, finds its home. Without the UB, we would not know what Jesus really meant. It’s true that some people would come to the right realization reading the NT alone, but with the UB we have a little more clarity which eliminates confusion. The kingdom of heaven is not just a big thing, it’s a dwelling place for God’s Spirit. That’s a very important difference between what a man wrote and what a celestial wrote. A huge difference.Brooklyn_born wrote: If it is a revelation recorded during a particular epoch then it belongs to that “epochal revelation.”No . . . it means that it belongs to that EPOCH.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Scripture, on the other hand, is designed to disseminate revelation to the masses.Scripture disseminates PERSONAL revelation to the masses. There are some satanic scriptures out there. Do you think they should be disseminated as revelation to the masses?Brooklyn_born wrote: They are a revelation dispensed to mankind in their relative time. That would qualify as epochal.So are you saying that scriptures are indited by God and then dispensed within an epoch teaching God’s word? Scriptures are written by men, not God. And I think you’re using a generic definition of epochal rather than the UB definition that we are talking about, which is epochal revelation, of which there are only five.
Brooklyn_born wrote: I understand the difference. I think you fail to see the fact that sacred writings contain revelation besides other items.I’m glad you understand the difference. But you keep on insisting that sacred writings are epochal, as defined in the UB. And no, I do not fail to see the fact that sacred writings by men are capable of inspiring personal revelation. But they cannot inspire epochal revelation. Epochal revelation requires the presence of a celestial in some form.
Brooklyn_born wrote:It is a part of epochal revelation as it is LISTED in the revelation papers and expounded on within epochal context.Just because parts of the New and Old Testament are quoted in the UB it doesn’t turn those quotes into epochal revelation. The explanations of what those quotes mean are part of the epochal revelation.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.
The teachings of Melchizedek were an epochal revelation. The epochal revelation formed the foundations of theology for most of the religions of the world that we are aware of. But that does not mean that those religions are revelatory, or epochal. There are three kinds of religion on this planet, revelatory, evolutionary and a combination of the two. Revelatory religion is personal religious experience and has nothing at all to do with evolutionary religion unless the religionist chooses to practice some form of evolutionary religion, which is what they mean by a combination of the two.
92:4.3 Evolutionary religion is sentimental, not logical. It is man’s reaction to belief in a hypothetical ghost-spirit world — the human belief-reflex, excited by the realization and fear of the unknown. Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities. Evolutionary religion pictures the circuitous gropings of humanity in quest of truth;revelatory religion is that very truth.92:6.2 On Urantia, evolutionary and revelatory religion are progressing side by side while they blend and coalesce into the diversified theologic systems found in the world in the times of the inditement of these papers.Brooklyn_born wrote: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.”No, not all epochal revelations are recorded. The written word didn’t appear in human history until relatively recently. 500,000 years ago very little was written and none of it survives. I think you’re having trouble realizing that it’s the LIVES of the celestials that are the revelation, not what is written ABOUT them.Brooklyn_born wrote: What is the purpose of the Book or written word then?What book? The New Testament? Good question. There are volumes written on how and why the Christian codex was created. I’d say that the purpose was to organize the faithful and keep the power structure in place as well as eliminate what was considered heretical . . . like Arianism, something St. Lucifer was passionately against. In fact Arianism was the reason for the Council of Nicea.
Brooklyn_born wrote: 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.I’m referring to the quote below which states that the concepts of divinity and eternity squeezed into the symbols of the English language are interpretable by the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth. When we read the UB, the only hope we have gleaning revelation from it is if we read in the light of these spirit influences.
0:12.13 We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience — God-consciousness.Brooklyn_born wrote: All ideas are represented as written statements so we can “READ” them. or how else could those ideas be communicated?So wait, all the ideas brought to the world by the Planetary Prince’s staff, Adam and Eve and Melchizedek were written down? Very few were written down and even fewer survived. Revelation is communicated through the Adjuster. Revelation is invariably spiritual, not written. If all revelation has to be written in order to be communicated then how did Paul have his Damascas Road moment? There were no billboards about Jesus on that road. He wasn’t reading Gospel scrolls while riding his camel.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.
Let’s say you’re right about that. What would be the purpose of modeling the Lucifer story on some guy from the 4th century that no one, I repeat, NO ONE, knows anything about? It doesn’t make any sense.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Bottom line revelation and epoch go hand in hand. . . . . Same difference. same message.What’s an epoch then? Who says when one epoch ends and another begins? The UB outlines it for us thereby eliminating confusion. That’s what revelation does. And I do see a huge difference in the order of things. The epochal revelation by a celestial being (or in case of UB a bunch of celestial beings) comes first. Then men and women react to it and have their own personal revelations based upon the epochal revelation. Those men and women want to share their personal revelations and write about it o,r tell people about it. Either way, they just have to share it.
One of the highlights of personal revelation is that it cannot be contained. It has to be shared. When people have personal religious experiences due to revelation they cannot stop themselves from telling the world about it, however they can. It’s the nature of the thing. God cannot be contained.
#1 is a literal reading in the strictest sense. #3 incorporates a spiritual component or expresses it within a spiritual context.
I don’t see a difference between literal and spiritual. Wouldn’t spiritual be more revelatory of the presence of God?
I have another question, maybe related, maybe not. How do you incorporate the teaching in the UB that we are supposed to have a trifold approach to reality which includes science, philosophy and religion? Should we read revelation with a similar trifold approach?
Now, today, you WON’T say that the New Testament is an epochal revelation. But you did say so above. Does that mean you’ve changed your mind on that?No, I have not changed my mind. I am getting specific with you. As the discussion moves along, points are refined. There will be times when I do not get my point across, fully, on the first try, so please bear with me. New Testament is a compilation of scripture. Many of those scriptures are recorded revelations. Now, lets nail it down to specifics. The New Testament contains some of the teachings of the 4th epochal revelation, among other things.No, the revelatory items of the Fourth Epochal Revelation were originally spoken and lived by Jesus. What some men wrote in the New Testament is not necessarily a faithful representation of what the Master said or did. Take your example above. I’ve reproduced the New Testament version followed by the UB version below:
Matthew 13:31-32 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”151:4.2 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.”There are only a few subtle differences between the two, but the differences are profound. In the NT version simply states that the kingdom of heaven grows and that it starts small and ends big enough for birds to perch in its branches. The UB sheds more light on the parable though. It repeats that the kingdom of heaven grows from small to large, but now we know that the “birds of heaven” are ABLE to REST in the branches. The difference is meant to explain that the kingdom of heaven is within the soul where the Adjuster, the bird of heaven, finds its home. Without the UB, we would not know what Jesus really meant. It’s true that some people would come to the right realization reading the NT alone, but with the UB we have a little more clarity which eliminates confusion. The kingdom of heaven is not just a big thing, it’s a dwelling place for God’s Spirit. That’s a very important difference between what a man wrote and what a celestial wrote. A huge difference.You are making my point. The revelations were recorded before there was a UB. Were they perfect representations of the revelation? No. There are corruptions and other stuff piled on. But the revelations are there, on paper, before a UB. Proof is the fact that revelators actually quote from the New Testament.No . . . it means that it belongs to that EPOCH.We will have to agree to disagree on this item.Scripture disseminates PERSONAL revelation to the masses. There are some satanic scriptures out there. Do you think they should be disseminated as revelation to the masses?What scripture are you referring to? I know of no satanic scripture of Biblical times. Could you cite it?So are you saying that scriptures are indited by God and then dispensed within an epoch teaching God’s word? Scriptures are written by men, not God. And I think you’re using a generic definition of epochal rather than the UB definition that we are talking about, which is epochal revelation, of which there are only five.
I believe I provided several references of scripture from the New Testament and various Judaic scripture which are reproduced and expounded on in TUB, as part of 5th epochal revelation. Here is one I posted earlier:7 “Though the Eternal Son cannot personally participate in the bestowal of the Thought Adjusters, he did sit in council with the Universal Father in the eternal past, approving the plan and pledging endless co-operation, when the Father, in projecting the bestowal of the Thought Adjusters, proposed to the Son, “Let
us make mortal man in our own image.”“Obviously this is an Edenic teaching which survived down the ages, reaching Moses who incorporated it into the Genesis scripture.I’m glad you understand the difference. But you keep on insisting that sacred writings are epochal, as defined in the UB.The sacred writings that are the foundation of today’s religions, which trace back to those during the time of Christ, are presentations of earlier epochal revelations. I believe I provided you with a reference. Here it is again, in part…3. “Melchizedek of Salem…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.”Judaism and Christianity are those theologic systems which carry teachings from the forth (and earlier) epochal revelation.And no, I do not fail to see the fact that sacred writings by men are capable of inspiring personal revelation. But they cannot inspire epochal revelation.As I showed above, scripture (specifically judeo-christian scripture, including canonical and aprocryphal) contains teachings of earlier epochal revelations; they are a “product” of that epochal revelation. Here is the quote again:3. “Melchizedek of Salem…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.”Epochal revelation requires the presence of a celestial in some form.Melchizedek took on material form. In the following, one of his acts is recorded in Genesis, a scripture in existence before TUB:Gen 14:18 “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. “Just because parts of the New and Old Testament are quoted in the UB it doesn’t turn those quotes into epochal revelation. The explanations of what those quotes mean are part of the epochal revelation.Oh yes they are. Those words of Jesus, quotes from the New Testament, are presentations of 4th epochal revelation, as revealed in the Jesus papers.The teachings of Melchizedek were an epochal revelation. The epochal revelation formed the foundations of theology for most of the religions of the world that we are aware of. But that does not mean that those religions are revelatory, or epochal.I did not say those religions were revalotory, and i went into a more detailed explanation in the opening of this post, in my first response. The response is appropriate here, as well, so I will reprint it… ‘New Testament is a compilation of scripture. Many of those scriptures are recorded revelations. So lets nail it down to specifics. The New Testament contains 4th epochal revelation, among other things.’Now, look at what we are told by a revelator regarding Melchizedek…10 And thus, in losing sight of Melchizedek, they also lost sight of the teaching of this emergency Son regarding the spiritual mission of the promised bestowal Son; lost sight of the nature of this mission so fully and completely that very few of their progeny were able or willing to recognize and receive Michael when he
appeared on earth and in the flesh as Machiventa had foretold.11 But one of the writers of the Book of Hebrews (New Testament scripture) understood the mission of Melchizedek, for it is written: “This Melchizedek, priest of the Most High, was also king of peace; without father, without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but made like a Son of God, he abides a priest continually.” This writer designated Melchizedek as a type of the later bestowal of Michael, affirming that Jesus was “a minister forever on the order of Melchizedek.” While this comparison was not altogether fortunate, it was literally true that Christ did receive provisional title to Urantia “upon the orders of the twelve Melchizedek receivers” on duty at the time of his world bestowal.No, not all epochal revelations are recorded. The written word didn’t appear in human history until relatively recently. 500,000 years ago very little was written and none of it survives. I think you’re having trouble realizing that it’s the LIVES of the celestials that are the revelation, not what is written ABOUT them.I fully understand the living aspect. But I believe you are having difficulty understanding that revelations are recorded. How can we learn of Jesus’ living without a recording? It does not make sense.What book? The New Testament? Good question. There are volumes written on how and why the Christian codex was created. I’d say that the purpose was to organize the faithful and keep the power structure in place as well as eliminate what was considered heretical . . . like Arianism, something St. Lucifer was passionately against. In fact Arianism was the reason for the Council of Nicea.The book I am referring to is UB. Why is it written? To what end does it serve in written form?I’m referring to the quote below which states that the concepts of divinity and eternity squeezed into the symbols of the English language are interpretable by the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth. When we read the UB, the only hope we have gleaning revelation from it is if we read in the light of these spirit influences.The author speaks to us and says that the relationship between Universal Father and Eternal Son can be viewed literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally. But this relationship, and its many facets, is presented to us as the written word; all throughout TUB you find the outcomes of this relationship; an example of one is their relationship is Infinite Spirit, from whom proceeds all creation in time space. So all those myriads of ideas in TUB reflecting Father-Son relationship can be read literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally.So wait, all the ideas brought to the world by the Planetary Prince’s staff, Adam and Eve and Melchizedek were written down?No, because that was not the mode of communication for them. Theirs was the word of mouth or “oral tradition.” But for us it is the written word.Let’s say you’re right about that. What would be the purpose of modeling the Lucifer story on some guy from the 4th century that no one, I repeat, NO ONE, knows anything about? It doesn’t make any sense.Bonita, I am researching this —uncharted waters. What I do know is there are enough parallels to warrant one.BB
What’s an epoch then? Who says when one epoch ends and another begins? The UB outlines it for us thereby eliminating confusion.
To be clear we are talking about epochal revelation; there are five. UB also describes the teachings found in each. If scripture is about Melchizek’s teaching then we can file it with the 3rd epochal revelation. If a scripture introduces the world to monotheism then we know it belongs to the Dalamatian teachings. If scripture portrays God as a father then we know it is Edenic. That these teachings persist and are found in scripture is evidence of their survival. The problem with your position is that it ignores the fact that TUB quotes from these scriptures.
BB
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.
Bonita, I understand your statement above, I agree that “some words have more than one meaning” and for the most part that definition can generally be determined by the context where in it is used, however I’m not sure that we need to “come to some level of agreement on what the” revelators intended, only because, in general it would be obvious that all of use would never really be able to agree totally, not to mention that each of use would bring different experience(s), education and insights into a debate just on definition. That having been said, I can agree that the New Testament should not be considered as “revelation” with the possible exception of “The Book of Revelation”, and even then I could take exception to that as well, where as you know, I have stated my reason for that, but it does not mean that the New Testament, and Old Testament, including apocryphal text, as [not] “epochal.” It is the combined words epochal and revelation which seems to be the issue, where as you mentioned the UB does present significant reference to its definition, where it is found two times in the text as “epochal revelation”. The same might be said for the word “scripture” where it has various definitions, which also includes the word “Bible” where if one looks at its root just means “Book”, and it is the implied emphasis which individuals place on those words which indicate their meaning.
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.
Yes, the UB refers to five revealing periods which it deems epochal, however I can not agree that it is “the first non-person” to be written after the fact of inspirational communication regardless of method, each involved humans, although there is still some controversy as to presentation of the “Jesus Paper”. What I am attempting to say here is, that whether revelation is presented by celestial, spirit being or angel, it has involved a human. Even the Book of Revelation was given to John, spiritually and he was instructed to write his message down, for who, his own use of benefit, no, since it was deemed important enough to be written down. The same can be said about the prophets of old, who may not have written their revelation down but they did spread this revelation by word of mouth. All can be considered as revelation but only transmitted or communicated differently but as we know, involved humans. The same can be said about an individual who may be spirit fused with their Thought Adjuster.
P.S.: [edited insertion] Bonita, sorry for the edit here but in rereading your paragraph above where I have underlined a section, and just now seem to get what you were saying there, where I get your “assertion” that you are saying that the UB instructs on how “to find the Spirit within”, which I can agree, however, I would say that it is not so much finding but recognizing that which resides in the superconscious, which I have been attempting to, over the years, describe what to look for and how to expand on these superconscious experiences. For a long time I have recognized the superconscious mind and benefited by this recognition, however it was not until reading the UB that I was able to associate its relationship to the various other conscious mind functions, where the UB presents this information in a consistent manor, however, not always literally written.
I will present the UB quotes where “epochal revelation” is mentioned, which additional text which seems to serve as additional explanation:
(1006.2) 92:3.5 Only two influences can modify and uplift the dogmas of natural religion: the pressure of the slowly advancing mores and the periodic illumination of epochal revelation. And it is not strange that progress was slow; in ancient days, to be progressive or inventive meant to be killed as a sorcerer. The cult advances slowly in generation epochs and agelong cycles. But it does move forward. Evolutionary belief in ghosts laid the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually destroy the superstition of its origin.
The following is more definitive:
(1109.3) 101:4.2 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.
(1109.4) 101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
(1109.5) 101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.
The last quote above might be confusing in that where it states “In the last analysis,” which could be taken two ways, where one, that it is indicating the previous quote, or as a summary type statement, although the later is the most obvious, because of the context of the remainder of the quote, although, some readers might interpret differently, and who knows how the punctuation was intended by the revelator, and edited with punctuation which could change its intended reference. The first quote of the last three does seem to present definitive narration which can be interpreted loosely, when applied to “epochal revelation”.
Bottom line, to me, I would consider the Urantia Book as Epochal Revelation, but I believe that it is inclusive of the fourth (giving that the Jesus Papers is the forth) and the fifth, however, if we were to [think] that the Jesus Papers were an addendum to the first three sections and if we did not get the forth section, how would the first three have read, even with their reference to Jesus? That by itself might be an interesting topic.
PP.S.: In reading the additional quotes that followed from the quotes above, I noticed that the next quote could be misunderstood.
(1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
(1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
(1109.8) 101:4.7 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
(1110.1) 101:4.8 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
(1110.2) 101:4.9 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
(1110.3) 101:4.10 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.Where the sentence in blue is not related to that which is presented in red, specifically the five points, which have been posted are related to “cosmology” and since they are not “inspired”, therefore being factually knowledge, and as indicated as important but, at the same time the five point do not relate to the sentence in blue, but many readers would assume that the five point apply to the blue also. This would confuse a reader who would apply the five points to “spiritual phenomenon” as fact instead of “inspired”.
I don’t see a difference between literal and spiritual. Wouldn’t spiritual be more revelatory of the presence of God?
Basically spiritual is an inward perception or indwelling, a location and the quality of a relationship between personalities.
I have another question, maybe related, maybe not. How do you incorporate the teaching in the UB that we are supposed to have a trifold approach to reality which includes science, philosophy and religion? Should we read revelation with a similar trifold approach?
Could you supply the reference?
BB
You are making my point. The revelations were recorded before there was a UB. Were they perfect representations of the revelation? No. There are corruptions and other stuff piled on. But the revelations are there, on paper, before a UB. Proof is the fact that revelators actually quote from the New Testament.
I don’t think I’ve ever denied that the UB quotes both the New and Old Testament. That’s not the point I thought we were discussing. What does that have to do with your claim that the New Testament is epochal revelation? I think I explained that just because the Testaments are quoted in TUB does not make them either revelatory or epochal. It’s just a quote like I quote you on this forum for the purpose of explaining something.
Scripture disseminates PERSONAL revelation to the masses. There are some satanic scriptures out there. Do you think they should be disseminated as revelation to the masses? What scripture are you referring to? I know of no satanic scripture of Biblical times. Could you cite it?
I’m not talking about satanic scripture from Biblical times. I’m talking about scripture in general at any and all times. If it is as you claim that all scripture is revelatory and epochal and that they are disseminated to the masses, then what do you say about the writings that some whacko religious groups hold sacred? Are their scriptures revelatory and epochal?
7 “Though the Eternal Son cannot personally participate in the bestowal of the Thought Adjusters, he did sit in council with the Universal Father in the eternal past, approving the plan and pledging endless co-operation, when the Father, in projecting the bestowal of the Thought Adjusters, proposed to the Son, “Let us make mortal man in our own image.”“ Obviously this is an Edenic teaching which survived down the ages, reaching Moses who incorporated it into the Genesis scripture.
I agree that the teaching survived the ages, but Moses did not write Genesis. That’s not the point though. I believe I stated in my last post that all of the growth in religious understanding overlaps from all previous epochal revelations. That’s the point of epochal revelation, to cause growth and progress. In fact, you can find remnants of the Third Epochal Revelation in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. But that fact does not make the scriptures of those religious epochal revelations. Epochal revelation is designed to infiltrate the thought processes of mankind. Mind is unity, we are all basically connected by cosmic mind, and all are affected in some way by it. I don’t understand how this makes your argument that the New Testament is an epochal revelation. You are still insisting that this is your position, right? And what does this have to do with Lucifer?
Brooklyn_born wrote:Oh yes they are. Those words of Jesus, quotes from the New Testament, are presentations of 4th epochal revelation, as revealed in the Jesus papers.I’ll repeat . . . just because a given piece of New or Old Testament scripture is quoted in the UB doesn’t make it scripture itself epochal revelation. Epochal revelation has to do with the person, in the case of the first four, and the totality of the book in the case of the fifth. Individual quotes are not epochal in and by themselves. And the revelatory part is totally dependent upon the reception and spiritual recognition within the soul of any given person. No one is arguing that the UB quotes scripture.
There are also quotes from philosophers. Does that make those philosophers epochal revelators? No, of course not. Blaise Pascal was quoted in the UB and no one considers his quote an epochal revelation. It was a personal revelation quoted in the UB, just like the quotes from the New and Old Testament authors.
Brooklyn_born wrote:So lets nail it down to specifics. The New Testament contains 4th epochal revelation, among other things.’Okay, I’ll nail it down to this specific: The New Testament contains a collection of various people’s interpretation of what the Fourth Epochal Revelation was all about. Plus, it only represents a relatively small group of people. Epochal revelation is supposed to reach all people of all evolutionary religions. Revelation is also supposed to upstep the religions of the world, which is why the UB quotes many of the scriptures that belong to the religions of the world.Brooklyn_born wrote:I fully understand the living aspect. But I believe you are having difficulty understanding that revelations are recorded. How can we learn of Jesus’ living without a recording? It does not make sense.I don’t think you understand that I do understand that people write about revelation. I think I wrote a very long paragraph about that in my last post. Did you read it? Yes of course people wrote down their revelations about the Fourth Epochal Revelation. They did write letters back and forth to one another, they did tell the stories about it. But that does not make their letters and story telling epochal in significance. And personally, I am very grateful that people do this. I am happy that I got to read about Jesus rather than hear stories passed down by word of mouth around the fireplace. But that does not change the fact that they are stories ABOUT the Fourth Epochal Revelation, not the actual epochal revelation. If Jesus wanted the written word to be the legacy of his incarnation, he would have written one. What he wanted was for each person to internalize his gospel and then spread the spiritual fragrance acquired from contact with his Spirit of Truth within. And the Spirit of Truth is quite competent to make sure that every single person on this planet, regardless of when or where they live, have a full version of his gospel revealed to them within the context of their individual lives. This is the part I don’t think you fully understand, the living truth part.
Brooklyn_born wrote: The book I am referring to is UB. Why is it written? To what end does it serve in written form?We can only speculate why they chose to give us a written revelation this time as opposed to a person. I don’t think the world can handle the actual presence of Deity during this age. A written revelation has the benefit of being somewhat neutral and therefore more readily acceptable by the thousands of different religions on this planet. Or, at least it has the potential of raising less ire. I also think that we humans need a lot of time to digest revelation and the written word is something we can refer to often, over our whole lifetimes, and use it as a fulcrum for more meditative thinking which promotes spiritual growth. A divine personality could reach small groups of people for short periods of time, and I think there is a down side to that right now. Plus, there are some people who have theorized that this is an emergency revelation. I don’t have an opinion on that though. I think it is a preparatory revelation meant to help us get over the dangerous shoals of this new modern age.
To be clear we are talking about epochal revelation; there are five. UB also describes the teachings found in each. If scripture is about Melchizek’s teaching then we can file it with the 3rd epochal revelation. If a scripture introduces the world to monotheism then we know it belongs to the Dalamatian teachings. If scripture portrays God as a father then we know it is Edenic. That these teachings persist and are found in scripture is evidence of their survival. The problem with your position is that it ignores the fact that TUB quotes from these scriptures.
Well . . . BB . . . those are your definitions and yours alone. You’re ignoring the fact that the concepts overlap. Sometimes they grow, sometimes they recede, sometimes they spawn new crazy ideas like messianic apocalypse. They get all mixed up with myth from various cultures and ages. It’s a stew. Portrayal of God as a Father didn’t really occur until much later than Adam and Eve. The Jews didn’t catch on to that idea until well after post-exilic times and even then it was hazy. Other religions of the world never arrived at that concept at all. When you talk about epochal revelation, you have to talk about the entire planet, not just the Jews and Christians.
96:1.15 The idea of Yahweh has undergone the most extensive development of all the mortal theories of God. Its progressive evolution can only be compared with the metamorphosis of the Buddha concept in Asia, which in the end led to the concept of the Universal Absolute even as the Yahweh concept finally led to the idea of the Universal Father. But as a matter of historic fact, it should be understood that, while the Jews thus changed their views of Deity from the tribal god of Mount Horeb to the loving and merciful Creator Father of later times, they did not change his name; they continued all the way along to call this evolving concept of Deity, Yahweh.
Epochal revelation has to do with the person, in the case of the first four, and the totality of the book in the case of the fifth.
One little point Bonita, as you state above about “the first four” being associated to persons; how do you know that the fifth is not associated with a person as well?
Just a small point, but who knows for sure?
I’m not sure that we need to “come to some level of agreement on what the” revelators intended, only because, in general it would be obvious that all of use would never really be able to agree totally, not to mention that each of use would bring different experience(s), education and insights into a debate just on definition.
I agree that it’s almost impossible for us to agree. But I do think that the revelators used an inordinate amount of ink on definitions in the Foreword. When words are defined in the UB, I think we should stick to those definitions as closely as possible.
When it comes to epochal revelation, the UB gives us a pretty clear definition. Epochal revelation occurs when truth is presented by a celestial agency, be it a single person or a group. I don’t think there is a lot of leeway for interpretation there. Neither the New or Old Testament is a presentation by a celestial agency, group or personality. It is a presentation by men who had an experience with their own Adjuster or with some other celestial agency, group or person. The presentation is by men, not celestials. And that right there is a huge, huge difference which cannot be ignored. Epochal revelation must be presented by a celestial or a group of celestials. Paul was not a celestial, Moses was not a celestial. Jesus was a celestial.
101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
I don’t think I’ve ever denied that the UB quotes both the New and Old Testament. That’s not the point I thought we were discussing. What does that have to do with your claim that the New Testament is epochal revelation?It has everything to do with the discussion. they quote those verses to advance revelation.I think I explained that just because the Testaments are quoted in TUB does not make them either revelatory or epochal.I disagree. They are epochal or to be more precise revelatory expressed through language:2 “present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm.”It’s just a quote like I quote you on this forum for the purpose of explaining something.It is not just a quote. They are revelation quotes.I’m not talking about satanic scripture from Biblical times. I’m talking about scripture in general at any and all times.
If that is what you mean then it is irrelevant as that would fall outside the scope of five epochal revelations, the topic of this discussion.
If it is as you claim that all scripture is revelatory and epochal and that they are disseminated to the masses, then what do you say about the writings that some whacko religious groups hold sacred? Are their scriptures revelatory and epochal?
No that is not my contention. Not all scripture. Only those that form the foundation of theologic systems present at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.
I agree that the teaching survived the ages, but Moses did not write Genesis.
Bonita, do you think it is really important who the author is? It is irrelevant. Scripture is scripture regardless as to authorship.
I believe I stated in my last post that all of the growth in religious understanding overlaps from all previous epochal revelations. That’s the point of epochal revelation, to cause growth and progress.
And my point is those teachings were recorded so you cannot discount those recordings. They are presentations, whether in part or whole, of epochal revelations. Honestly, I think this debate centers on semantics.
In fact, you can find remnants of the Third Epochal Revelation in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.
Then those scriptures are presentations of their respective epochal teachings.
But that fact does not make the scriptures of those religious epochal revelations.
As I said above, I think this debate is based in semantics. Those scriptures are recordings of epochal teachings/revelations.
Epochal revelation is designed to infiltrate the thought processes of mankind. Mind is unity, we are all basically connected by cosmic mind, and all are affected in some way by it. I don’t understand how this makes your argument that the New Testament is an epochal revelation. You are still insisting that this is your position, right? And what does this have to do with Lucifer?
I believe I expanded on it in hopes of making my point clearer. Within the New Testament you will find scriptures that are recordings of epochal teachings. Therefore they fit the criteria of epochal revelation as TUB fits it.
I’ll repeat . . . just because a given piece of New or Old Testament scripture is quoted in the UB doesn’t make it scripture itself epochal revelation.Are you telling me the words of Christ have no bearing on epochal revelation?Epochal revelation has to do with the person, in the case of the first four, and the totality of the book in the case of the fifth.And I have no problem with that. But their teachings survive in the written form. That is my point. Are you telling me TUB is not a presentation of an epochal revelation? TUB is not a person.Individual quotes are not epochal in and by themselves.Okay, perhaps we are getting somewhere. They are not epochal by themselves. I agree.And the revelatory part is totally dependent upon the reception and spiritual recognition within the soul of any given person.Exactly! And many have gotten reception and spiritual recognition from scripture.No one is arguing that the UB quotes scripture. There are also quotes from philosophers. Does that make those philosophers epochal revelators?Philosophy is not a revelatory religionNo, of course not. Blaise Pascal was quoted in the UB and no one considers his quote an epochal revelation. It was a personal revelation quoted in the UB, just like the quotes from the New and Old Testament authors.Again, it isn’t revelatory religion.Brooklyn_born wrote:So lets nail it down to specifics. The New Testament contains 4th epochal revelation, among other things.’Okay, I’ll nail it down to this specific: The New Testament contains a collection of various people’s interpretation of what the Fourth Epochal Revelation was all about.I provided you with a scripture from the OT that TUB uses to present a revelation.Plus, it only represents a relatively small group of people.There weren’t many prophets or holy men receiving revelation or kept the records of earlier revelations.Epochal revelation is supposed to reach all people of all evolutionary religions. Revelation is also supposed to upstep the religions of the world, which is why the UB quotes many of the scriptures that belong to the religions of the world.And those evolutionary religions contain presentations of epochal revelation. I provided a reference which says revelations commingled with ideas that were inventions of men.I don’t think you understand that I do understand that people write about revelation. I think I wrote a very long paragraph about that in my last post. Did you read it? Yes of course people wrote down their revelations about the Fourth Epochal Revelation. They did write letters back and forth to one another, they did tell the stories about it. But that does not make their letters and story telling epochal in significance.TUB is a book or writings. What makes TUB different from previous ‘spiritual’ writings?And personally, I am very grateful that people do this. I am happy that I got to read about Jesus rather than hear stories passed down by word of mouth around the fireplace. But that does not change the fact that they are stories ABOUT the Fourth Epochal Revelation,Yes! and TUB is a writing about fifth epochal revelation, as well! It is more accurate than others but not perfect, still. I really believe this debate revolves around semantics.not the actual epochal revelation.Is TUB an actual epochal revelation? Yes or No. And why? I think this question will bring the discussion to a close.BB
Jesus was a celestial.
Incorrect! Jesus was just as human as Moses and Saul/Paul. If you truly believe that He was a celestial, then you have missed the entire point of His existence on Earth. Fore, if I am wrong then His entire message and the efforts of the presentation of the UB was a futile measure. On this I will not budge and this I know as a fact! If He was [not] human then the entire message posted throughout the UB, that we are the Son’s and Daughters of God, and the brotherhood of man, would be a lie. Just because you do not know how or by what means this is made possible, means not that you have the right to tell others that which you have no inkling too know. If you wish to believe what you say, that is your prerogative, but refrain from spreading your error. If Jesus is a Celestial then I am a Celestial.
You present the following as evidence:
101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
Please make note of the colon and the semicolon, then in the statement after the semicolon, which is a restated understanding of “Truth is always a revelation:” where if a comma was used it would have been inclusive, but the key word in the statement in question is “function” and then this function is directed “to some other” and not as a first person narrative. Then if as the first statement indicates the “autorevelation” would imply an individual, like a prophet who speaks directly to their audience and has conscious understanding of the influence by which they project a message.
Hi Midi,
I read in TUB that he was of dual personalities, human and divine. Completely human and completely divine.
Manny
I read in TUB that he was of dual personalities, human and divine. Completely human and completely divine
He was not a dual personality, but He was only considered divine after His baptism, besides divine does not mean celestial, it means that God is in us or with us or we are like God, but not God.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.