-
Posts
-
Hi Midi,
140:5.2 Jesus loves mankind with a dual affection. He lived on earth as a twofold personality— human and divine. As the Son of God he loves man with a fatherly love—he is man’s Creator, his universe Father. As the Son of Man, Jesus loves mortals as a brother—he was truly a man among men.
Dual vs twofold; probably the same.
Divine vs celestial; granted, not all celestial are of divine origin or indeed divine but all divinity must be other than human, celestial.
I’ll leave it to the language experts to debate.
Manny
MidiChlorian wrote: 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. On this I will not budge and this I know as a fact!So sorry about your immense wrongness Midi and your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of this revelation. But as I promised, I will challenge you, because this is the free service I provide.
Jesus did not suffer from multiple personality disorder. Jesus had only ONE personality, the same personality he had while on Paradise. When he incarnated, his personality was nowhere else to be found except on our little blue planet. He came here bringing his personality with him. He did not leave it behind and find a new one. Each individual gets only one personality; there is no swapping it out.
I’m certain you’re confusing his personality with his mind. The MIND of Jesus was both human and divine, but his PERSONALITY is, was, and always will be CELESTIAL AND DIVINE regardless of where he was, is or will be serving.
It’s interesting that this thread has come full circle. We are now entering the debate which made St. Lucifer famous, the debate concerning Arianism, an idea of which he was staunchly opposed. Below I quoted a brief history of Arianism from the Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2006:
4th-century Christian heresy founded in Alexandria by the priest Arius. He taught that Christ was not coequal and coeternal with God the Father, for the Father had created him. To curb Arianism, the Emperor Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea (325), and the first Nicene Creed declared that God the Father and Christ the Son were of the same substance. Arianism later almost triumphed, but most of the church returned to orthodoxy by the end of the century. Though checked within the Roman Empire, Arianism was by no means dead, particularly among the German tribes in the north who has [sic] been converted to this type of Christianity by Wulfila and his successors.
During their invasions into Roman lands, they frequently persecuted the native Christians, but they were themselves eventually destroyed or converted. Thus it was the armies of Justinian I that destroyed Arianism among the Vandals in Africa (533) and the Ostrogoths in Italy (540). The Visigoths in Spain were brought into the church through the conversion of their king in 587.
And, here’s a description of Arianism from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm):
He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Sonwas originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.
Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence,nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.
Odd that St. Lucifer fought against the idea that the Father and the Son are not one and contended vehemently that they are ONE. It seems to me that Lucifer, the anti-saint, argued the opposite, that the Father and the Son are NOT one; in fact his position was that the Father did not exist at all and that the Son had no inherent right to rule. It seems to me that St. Lucifer and Lucifer the anti-saint were at complete odds on this issue. So why would anyone want to use St. Lucifer as a model for Lucifer the anti-saint? It makes no sense at all.
Oh, and incidentally, it was not the midwayers who wrote the Paper 53, The Lucifer Rebellion. It was written by Manovandet Melchizedek, onetime attached to the receivership of Urantia.
(1317.1) 119:7.5 Joshua ben Joseph, the Jewish baby, was conceived and was born into the world just as all other babies before and since except that this particular baby was the incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, a divine Son of Paradise and the creator of all this local universe of things and beings. And this mystery of the incarnation of Deity within the human form of Jesus, otherwise of natural origin on the world, will forever remain unsolved. Even in eternity you will never know the technique and method of the incarnation of the Creator in the form and likeness of his creatures. That is the secret of Sonarington, and such mysteries are the exclusive possession of those divine Sons who have passed through the bestowal experience.
(1343.1) 121:8.12 [Acknowledgment: In carrying out my commission to restate the teachings and retell the doings of Jesus of Nazareth, I have drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary information. My ruling motive has been to prepare a record which will not only be enlightening to the generation of men now living, but which may also be helpful to all future generations. From the vast store of information made available to me, I have chosen that which is best suited to the accomplishment of this purpose. As far as possible I have derived my information from purely human sources. Only when such sources failed, have I resorted to those records which are superhuman. When ideas and concepts of Jesus’ life and teachings have been acceptably expressed by a human mind, I invariably gave preference to such apparently human thought patterns. Although I have sought to adjust the verbal expression the better to conform to our concept of the real meaning and the true import of the Master’s life and teachings, as far as possible, I have adhered to the actual human concept and thought pattern in all my narratives. I well know that those concepts which have had origin in the human mind will prove more acceptable and helpful to all other human minds. When unable to find the necessary concepts in the human records or in human expressions, I have next resorted to the memory resources of my own order of earth creatures, the midwayers. And when that secondary source of information proved inadequate, I have unhesitatingly resorted to the superplanetary sources of information.
(1343.2) 121:8.13 The memoranda which I have collected, and from which I have prepared this narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus — aside from the memory of the record of the Apostle Andrew — embrace thought gems and superior concepts of Jesus’ teachings assembled from more than two thousand human beings who have lived on earth from the days of Jesus down to the time of the inditing of these revelations, more correctly restatements. The revelatory permission has been utilized only when the human record and human concepts failed to supply an adequate thought pattern. My revelatory commission forbade me to resort to extrahuman sources of either information or expression until such a time as I could testify that I had failed in my efforts to find the required conceptual expression in purely human sources.
(1343.3) 121:8.14 While I, with the collaboration of my eleven associate fellow midwayers and under the supervision of the Melchizedek of record, have portrayed this narrative in accordance with my concept of its effective arrangement and in response to my choice of immediate expression, nevertheless, the majority of the ideas and even some of the effective expressions which I have thus utilized had their origin in the minds of the men of many races who have lived on earth during the intervening generations, right on down to those who are still alive at the time of this undertaking. In many ways I have served more as a collector and editor than as an original narrator. I have unhesitatingly appropriated those ideas and concepts, preferably human, which would enable me to create the most effective portraiture of Jesus’ life, and which would qualify me to restate his matchless teachings in the most strikingly helpful and universally uplifting phraseology. In behalf of the Brotherhood of the United Midwayers of Urantia, I most gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to all sources of record and concept which have been hereinafter utilized in the further elaboration of our restatement of Jesus’ life on earth.]
Jesus did not suffer from multiple personality disorder. Jesus had only ONE personality, the same personality he had while on Paradise. When he incarnated, his personality was nowhere else to be found except on our little blue planet. He came here bringing his personality with him. He did not leave it behind and find a new one. Each individual gets only one personality; there is no swapping it out. I’m certain you’re confusing his personality with his mind. The MIND of Jesus was both human and divine, but his PERSONALITY is, was, and always will be CELESTIAL AND DIVINE regardless of where he was, is or will be serving.
Me here: Jesus was Michael at birth and Michael was Jesus. One did not become the other but both were one. A singular personality as Bonita says.
And there is only epochal and personal revelation – the writings of humans are expressions of personal revelation (their own) or expressions of personal commentary on epochal revelation. Since Pentacost there have been no revelations received by any human that were intended for any other human – the Spirit of Truth has ended all “second hand” revelation – from one mortal to another. I am curious as to the role of prophets though before this time of Michael’s gift. Neither Jews nor Christians have deemed another as a prophet since these times. Interesting.
from the Encyclopedia of World Religions
Yah, Bonita, I bought the book because it was listed as a reference which stated that the Urantia Book represented a UFO Religion and I needed to verify the source of the material, which I challenged the on-line entry. It would seem that reading the actual reference text that person making the on-line reference can’t read either but in some cases as long as one can find word in print reference, regardless of the source of the material and its possible bias, it is okay to imply that what is on the internet is gospel truth. Buy the book and you will see that its authorship and contributors are of one specific religious sect, therefore, the content could be considered as bias to that religious thought. In the various articles listed in this book, are accompanied with commentary and information used to determine its content, however the on-line listing does not show these references, whereby the idea is to buy the book where which the authors will benefit monetarily.
Although, your literal interpretation of the UB would justify the labeling of the UB as a UFO religion, which in itself has an interesting definition.
140:5.2 Jesus loves mankind with a dual affection. He lived on earth as a twofold personality— human and divine. As the Son of God he loves man with a fatherly love—he is man’s Creator, his universe Father. As the Son of Man, Jesus loves mortals as a brother—he was truly a man among men.
Dual vs twofold; probably the same.
Manny, note the last phrase from the quote you provided, however your last statement above does require additional research, in that “twofold” can go back to its root base as double measure, nevertheless, the base root of “twofold” is the suffix “-fold”.
“-fold” –
1. a native English suffix meaning “of so many parts,” or denoting multiplication by the number indicated by the stem or word to which the suffix is attached: twofold; manifold.
Origin – Middle English; Old English -fald, -feald, cognate with Old Frisian, Old Saxon -fald, German -falt, Old Norse -faldr, Gothic -falths, all representing the Germanic base of fold1; akin to Greek -ploos, -plous (see haplo-, diplo- ), Latin -plus (see simple, double, etc.), -plex -plex
Middle English dictionary: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?size=First+100&type=orths&q1=twofold&rgxp=constrained
twōfōld (adj.) Also twofolde, tofolde & (early) twafalt, twavalt.
1. (a) Consisting of two elements or parts, having two aspects; of two kinds; two in number; of a measure: double; also, as noun: two sins [quot. a1225]; ~ in the yer, repeated twice a year, biannual; maken ~, to double (sin), make doubly grievous; (b) folded in two, doubled, double; turnen ~, to fold (sth.) over; turnen up ~, double over, become folded back or up;— ?used in fig. context; (c) as adv.: doubly.
2. Of two minds, inconstant; ?also, duplicitous.
. . . embrace thought gems and superior concepts of Jesus’ teachings assembled from more than two thousand human beings who have lived on earth from the days of Jesus down to the time of the inditing of these revelations, more correctly restatements.
. . . .the majority of the ideas and even some of the effective expressions which I have thus utilized had their origin in the minds of the men of many races who have lived on earth during the intervening generations, right on down to those who are still alive at the time of this undertaking.WOW! Every time I read that I get chills. Do you realize that the midwayers have access to our thoughts? Some of us reading this forum and thinking about it might be formulating thoughts profound enough to get midwayer attention. Some deep thinkers might even have their ideas registered in the midwayer thought bank of worthwhile human contemplation. How great is that? Makes you want to think and think and think, then think some more.TUB is a book or writings. What makes TUB different from previous ‘spiritual’ writings?
Me here: AUTHORSHIP is the difference….the SOURCE of information is the difference…..AUTHORITY is the difference due to AUTHORSHIP & SOURCE.
BB – to take your assertion to any logical progress, one would have to believe that I (and all of us) am, right now, writing scripture by your definition as we write about epochal revelation. Not only did humans write the words which others then, much later, called them scripture. Were they scripture when written? Or only when collected and selected for a volume? Much was written that did not make the selection process. So it is not the judgment of the author but of a cleric that determines that which is or is not scripture? Or do I understand you to say that not only do I write scripture here but also write revelation as well since I write ABOUT revelation? Where are these lines drawn? Who draws them? The UB claims only one written epochal revelation and 4 living ones.
MidiChlorian wrote: Buy the book and you will see that its authorship and contributors are of one specific religious sect, therefore, the content could be considered as bias to that religious thought.I do own the book, have so since 2006. Where do you think I got the quote from? But then again, it may not be an authorized copy, since I bought it for a bargain price. She says, rolling her eyes
MidiChlorian wrote: Although, your literal interpretation of the UB would justify the labeling of the UB as a UFO religion, which in itself has an interesting definition.Speak for yourself dude.
Me here: AUTHORSHIP is the difference….the SOURCE of information is the difference…..AUTHORITY is the difference due to AUTHORSHIP & SOURCE.
EXACTLY!!
The problem is that some people on this forum do not accept the authority of the celestial authors, while some of us do. BB and Midi keep screaming that those who accept the authority of the authorship are literalist, close minded dummkopfs. And therein lies the rub.
I am curious if any of the real gospel of Jesus could get into the mind of an individual who has no formal religion at all, not read the bible or TUB or any other religious document.
nelsong wrote: I am curious if any of the real gospel of Jesus could get into the mind of an individual who has no formal religion at all, not read the bible or TUB or any other religious document.That’s a really excellent question Nelson. The UB gives us a hint in this next quote:
34:5.5 Though the Spirit of Truth is poured out upon all flesh, this spirit of the Son is almost wholly limited in function and power by man’s personal reception of that which constitutes the sum and substance of the mission of the bestowal Son.
So, any person who accepts the sum and substance of Michael’s bestowal mission has access to the Spirit of Truth. What is the sum and substance of the bestowal mission? It is simply the worship of God and the service of man as stated in the quote below:
159:5.7 The worship of God and the service of man became the sum and substance of his religion.
Anyone who worships God and tries to love his neighbor has the Spirit of Truth within him. Any person who has the Spirit of Truth within him is potentially living the gospel of Jesus. It doesn’t have to be the “Christian God” or the Church’s definition of service. As long as a person is conscious of the indwelling Spirit and lives his life as if in the presence of God has everything they need even if they never have any exposure at all to formal religion or so-called scripture. That’s how I see it.
Anyone who worships God and tries to love his neighbor has the Spirit of Truth within him. Any person who has the Spirit of Truth within him is potentially living the gospel of Jesus. It doesn’t have to be the “Christian God” or the Church’s definition of service. As long as a person is conscious of the indwelling Spirit and lives his life as if in the presence of God has everything they need even if they never have any exposure at all to formal religion or so-called scripture. That’s how I see it.
I agree. And this is the nature of the 4th epochical revelation and how it gets into our minds independent of the writings of the New Testament authors, no? The urges to worship God and serve our fellow human beings, the sense of brotherhood.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.