-
Posts
-
6:4.4 The Father must be spiritually omnipresent, but such omnipresence appears to be
inseparable from the everywhere spirit activities of the Eternal Son. We do, however,
believe that in all situations of Father-Son presence of a dual spiritual nature the spirit of
the Son is co-ordinate with the spirit of the Father.
BB
Mark of the Beast = Mark of Divinity
Mystery, Babylon the Great = Mystery Monitors
Image of the Beast = Image of God.
Did the revelators want to draw parallels between the two revelations?
So, your use of the equal mark is not meant to show equality but something else? Did you mean that these things are opposites? Black and white? Evil and good Unholy and holy?
If the mark of divinity and the image of God are synonyms for the Mystery Monitor, are their opposites also synonyms for Babylon the Great, the Mother of the Whores, and the Abominations of the earth? Is she also the image of the beast and the mark of the beast? If I read Revelations 17 correctly, the Whore and the Beast are two different things. It’s my belief that this portion of the Book of Revelations has its origins in gnosticism relying heavily on the bastardized version of Zoroastrianism which includes dualism and a judgment day. I seriously doubt John wrote any of this. He was more enlightened than that.
The Fifth Epochal Revelation drawing parallels to the Book of Revelation, which is not a revelation, is like Jesus drawing parallels between his gospel and the Lucifer Manifesto. Parallels don’t intersect right? In fact, I think the purpose of true Revelation is to add new meaning which would alter the trajectory on a greater angle away from the old line of thinking, making them no longer parallel. It’s a whole new direction! A whole new way of thinking about things. We’re not supposed to put fresh new wine into old wine skins. If we do, the old skins will burst! What a mess that makes . . . chaos. ERROR.
Creator Sons are of dual origin. Their parents are two members of the Trinity, the Father and the Eternal Son. The Spirit of the Creator Son, which we know as the Spirit of Truth, is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. But the dual NATURE of our Creator Son does not mean that his creations are of the same dual NATURE. Don’t forget about the Creative Spirit. The Creative spirit is a single origin Deity, from the other member of the Trinity. When both the Creator Son and the Creative Spirit create, they create with THREE natures.
I find it fascinating that the revelators use terms mentioned in the Book of Revelation specifically to describe the unholy trinity. Those terms are mystery, mark, and image: [. . .]
Did the revelators want to draw parallels between the two revelations?
It would appear that the general implication here is that TUB, being associated as a “revelation” and that “Book of Revelation” may have parallels, which may require a stretch in supposition in order to make this argument, if it even can be argued or debated?
In the explanation presented in TUB, regarding the “Book of Revelation” it has presented the author of this work as being John Zebedee, or at least as I read it, even though I thought otherwise in my studies of the “Book of Revelation” in my youth. It also presents information as to its current status regarding validity as it has been presented in text today.
(1555.6) 139:4.13 John was in prison several times and was banished to the Isle of Patmos for a period of four years until another emperor came to power in Rome. Had not John been tactful and sagacious, he would undoubtedly have been killed as was his more outspoken brother James. As the years passed, John, together with James the Lord’s brother, learned to practice wise conciliation when they appeared before the civil magistrates. They found that a “soft answer turns away wrath.” They also learned to represent the church as a “spiritual brotherhood devoted to the social service of mankind” rather than as “the kingdom of heaven.” They taught loving service rather than ruling power — kingdom and king.
(1555.7) 139:4.14 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.
(1555.8) 139:4.15 John traveled much, labored incessantly, and after becoming bishop of the Asia churches, settled down at Ephesus. He directed his associate, Nathan, in the writing of the so-called “Gospel according to John,” at Ephesus, when he was ninety-nine years old. Of all the twelve apostles, John Zebedee eventually became the outstanding theologian. He died a natural death at Ephesus in A.D. 103 when he was one hundred and one years of age.
Based on the narrative above in (139:4.14) the “Book of Revelation” would seem to have been “a great revelation”, where it might be implied that that Book contained a great revelation within it from another source or that in itself was a great work of composition. Nevertheless, based on this information one would need to take this into account, when examining its current content. But putting aside what was “lost” or “removed” for now, and looking at what remains as having been “adulterated” or changed, possibly to make it less desirable, would also need to be taken into account in using it as a parallel, to even other narratives within the Bible or TUB.
Upon having read the narrative presented above, a few years ago, which presented itself in a different context, I was somewhat puzzled why it would be presented in the UB, where my extensive and detailed study of the “Book of Revelation” in prior years, should have been altered in any way, so not having read it for some time, I was compelled to read it again to see what was presented in TUB could have been referring too.
To my surprise, what I had originally studied, was truly “adulterated” as mentioned, but from my memory, could recall what was and is now, and how it changed and what was removed or lost, where what was removed is one thing but what was lost would have been the meaning behind that which was removed or changed as having possibly been lost through time. Thereby, having acquired a better understand of temporal mechanics, even as it is presented in TUB. The Urantia Book indicates several reasons why some persons have the ability to remember things which others do or cannot, but being able to remember has given me a different perspective on this subject. It would be difficult to present in detail if there is any kind of parallel between what has been introduced here without having an open mind to other possibilities first.
Midi, have you read the Book of Enoch? If so, what are your thoughts on it?The UB papers reference his writing here:126:3.6 In the course of this year Jesus found a passage in the so-called Book of Enoch which influenced him in the later adoption of the term “Son of Man” as a designation for his bestowal mission on Urantia. He had thoroughly considered the idea of the Jewish Messiah and was firmly convinced that he was not to be that Messiah. He longed to help his father’s people, but he never expected to lead Jewish armies in overthrowing the foreign domination of Palestine. He knew he would never sit on the throne of David at Jerusalem. Neither did he believe that his mission was that of a spiritual deliverer or moral teacher solely to the Jewish people. In no sense, therefore, could his life mission be the fulfillment of the intense longings and supposed Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures; at least, not as the Jews understood these predictions of the prophets. Likewise he was certain he was never to appear as the Son of Man depicted by the Prophet Daniel.I find it fascinating that the revelators use terms mentioned in the Book of Revelation specifically to describe the unholy trinity. Those terms are mystery, mark, and image: [. . .]
Did the revelators want to draw parallels between the two revelations?
It would appear that the general implication here is that TUB, being associated as a “revelation” and that “Book of Revelation” may have parallels, which may require a stretch in supposition in order to make this argument, if it even can be argued or debated? In the explanation presented in TUB, regarding the “Book of Revelation” it has presented the author of this work as being John Zebedee, or at least as I read it, even though I thought otherwise in my studies of the “Book of Revelation” in my youth. It also presents information as to its current status regarding validity as it has been presented in text today.
(1555.6) 139:4.13 John was in prison several times and was banished to the Isle of Patmos for a period of four years until another emperor came to power in Rome. Had not John been tactful and sagacious, he would undoubtedly have been killed as was his more outspoken brother James. As the years passed, John, together with James the Lord’s brother, learned to practice wise conciliation when they appeared before the civil magistrates. They found that a “soft answer turns away wrath.” They also learned to represent the church as a “spiritual brotherhood devoted to the social service of mankind” rather than as “the kingdom of heaven.” They taught loving service rather than ruling power — kingdom and king. (1555.7) 139:4.14 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form. (1555.8) 139:4.15 John traveled much, labored incessantly, and after becoming bishop of the Asia churches, settled down at Ephesus. He directed his associate, Nathan, in the writing of the so-called “Gospel according to John,” at Ephesus, when he was ninety-nine years old. Of all the twelve apostles, John Zebedee eventually became the outstanding theologian. He died a natural death at Ephesus in A.D. 103 when he was one hundred and one years of age.
Based on the narrative above in (139:4.14) the “Book of Revelation” would seem to have been “a great revelation”, where it might be implied that that Book contained a great revelation within it from another source or that in itself was a great work of composition. Nevertheless, based on this information one would need to take this into account, when examining its current content. But putting aside what was “lost” or “removed” for now, and looking at what remains as having been “adulterated” or changed, possibly to make it less desirable, would also need to be taken into account in using it as a parallel, to even other narratives within the Bible or TUB. Upon having read the narrative presented above, a few years ago, which presented itself in a different context, I was somewhat puzzled why it would be presented in the UB, where my extensive and detailed study of the “Book of Revelation” in prior years, should have been altered in any way, so not having read it for some time, I was compelled to read it again to see what was presented in TUB could have been referring too. To my surprise, what I had originally studied, was truly “adulterated” as mentioned, but from my memory, could recall what was and is now, and how it changed and what was removed or lost, where what was removed is one thing but what was lost would have been the meaning behind that which was removed or changed as having possibly been lost through time. Thereby, having acquired a better understand of temporal mechanics, even as it is presented in TUB. The Urantia Book indicates several reasons why some persons have the ability to remember things which others do or cannot, but being able to remember has given me a different perspective on this subject. It would be difficult to present in detail if there is any kind of parallel between what has been introduced here without having an open mind to other possibilities first.
BB
Midi, have you read the Book of Enoch? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
Yes, there are three and one as an alternate translation, which kind of makes it four, however there is a lot of information contained in them, where it would be difficult to give an overall viewpoint of one without referencing to specific version. It would be difficult to associate the Urantia Books reference to the Book of Enoch because Jesus, apparently read a version that may have been the Alexandrian Library version. Also, based on legion, Enoch was to have written 365 books, where there is no way of telling how much of this so called information may have made it into what is currently presented as the Books of Enoch. There were a few things that I found in the text which did help clear up a few things for me, but then I was just reading for general information.
Midi,According to UB Jesus read the one that introduces readers to the title, “Son of Man.” I believe it is the Ethiopic edition where we encounter that title. And if I am correct, then Jesus was reading that specific text.Midi, have you read the Book of Enoch? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
Yes, there are three and one as an alternate translation, which kind of makes it four, however there is a lot of information contained in them, where it would be difficult to give an overall viewpoint of one without referencing to specific version. It would be difficult to associate the Urantia Books reference to the Book of Enoch because Jesus, apparently read a version that may have been the Alexandrian Library version. Also, based on legion, Enoch was to have written 365 books, where there is no way of telling how much of this so called information may have made it into what is currently presented as the Books of Enoch. There were a few things that I found in the text which did help clear up a few things for me, but then I was just reading for general information.
BB
According to UB Jesus read the one that introduces readers to the title, “Son of Man.” I believe it is the Ethiopic edition where we encounter that title. And if I am correct, then Jesus was reading that specific text.
Thanks BB. My first copy of these text was ordered from the Oxford University Press, over twenty-five yeas ago, in hard copy. It is easier to read and search the text online through a PDF formatted copy, which I also have several however one of the most complete copies might be the following attached:
According to UB Jesus read the one that introduces readers to the title, “Son of Man.” I believe it is the Ethiopic edition where we encounter that title. And if I am correct, then Jesus was reading that specific text.
Thanks BB. My first copy of these text was ordered from the Oxford University Press, over twenty-five yeas ago, in hard copy. It is easier to read and search the text online through a PDF formatted copy, which I also have several however one of the most complete copies might be the following attached:
The copy I have is contained in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha by James Charlesworth. I bought mine in 1992. I was fortunate to gain access to a 1960 or 70s edition vaulted at a public library in Brooklyn NYC. An amazing experience! to say the least
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.