The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Caino]

Humanism

Humanism


"Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction,... or hold loving fellowship with a law.

"True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God-ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

 

[jamie]

...it was almost exclusively a religion of the soldiers and did not admit women to its membership. It would thus not appeal to the masses, women, or slaves.

Would that be like not admitting women to the priesthood of a religious organization?

 

[Aimiel]

Yup. Junia was a female apostle. There were women in ministry in the early church. The first two chosen to spread the Gospel were women:

Matthew 28:10
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

 

[Aimiel]

"Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction,... or hold loving fellowship with a law.

"True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God-ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

:blabla:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

:blabla:

Yep!

 

[Caino]

Would that be like not admitting women to the priesthood of a religious organization?

Jesus of the UB had a core of female evangelist. Christianity, and the Bible for that matter, is heavily bias towards men as the Bible was written by men for the most part.

(1840.3) 167:6.4 Woman’s status in Palestine was much improved by Jesus’ teaching; and so it would have been throughout the world if his followers had not departed so far from that which he painstakingly taught them.

The Women’s Evangelistic Corps​

(1678.5) 150:1.1 Of all the daring things which Jesus did in connection with his earth career, the most amazing was his sudden announcement on the evening of January 16: “On the morrow we will set apart ten women for the ministering work of the kingdom.” At the beginning of the two weeks’ period during which the apostles and the evangelists were to be absent from Bethsaida on their furlough, Jesus requested David to summon his parents back to their home and to dispatch messengers calling to Bethsaida ten devout women who had served in the administration of the former encampment and the tented infirmary. These women had all listened to the instruction given the young evangelists, but it had never occurred to either themselves or their teachers that Jesus would dare to commission women to teach the gospel of the kingdom and minister to the sick. These ten women selected and commissioned by Jesus were: Susanna, the daughter of the former chazan of the Nazareth synagogue; Joanna, the wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas; Elizabeth, the daughter of a wealthy Jew of Tiberias and Sepphoris; Martha, the elder sister of Andrew and Peter; Rachel, the sister-in-law of Jude, the Master’s brother in the flesh; Nasanta, the daughter of Elman, the Syrian physician; Milcha, a cousin of the Apostle Thomas; Ruth, the eldest daughter of Matthew Levi; Celta, the daughter of a Roman centurion; and Agaman, a widow of Damascus. Subsequently, Jesus added two other women to this group — Mary Magdalene and Rebecca, the daughter of Joseph of Arimathea.

(1679.1) 150:1.2 Jesus authorized these women to effect their own organization and directed Judas to provide funds for their equipment and for pack animals. The ten elected Susanna as their chief and Joanna as their treasurer. From this time on they furnished their own funds; never again did they draw upon Judas for support.

(1679.2) 150:1.3 It was most astounding in that day, when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue (being confined to the women’s gallery), to behold them being recognized as authorized teachers of the new gospel of the kingdom. The charge which Jesus gave these ten women as he set them apart for gospel teaching and ministry was the emancipation proclamation which set free all women and for all time; no more was man to look upon woman as his spiritual inferior. This was a decided shock to even the twelve apostles. Notwithstanding they had many times heard the Master say that “in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God,” they were literally stunned when he proposed formally to commission these ten women as religious teachers and even to permit their traveling about with them. The whole country was stirred up by this proceeding, the enemies of Jesus making great capital out of this move, but everywhere the women believers in the good news stood stanchly behind their chosen sisters and voiced no uncertain approval of this tardy acknowledgment of woman’s place in religious work. And this liberation of women, giving them due recognition, was practiced by the apostles immediately after the Master’s departure, albeit they fell back to the olden customs in subsequent generations. Throughout the early days of the Christian church women teachers and ministers were called deaconesses and were accorded general recognition. But Paul, despite the fact that he conceded all this in theory, never really incorporated it into his own attitude and personally found it difficult to carry out in practice."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

From Caino, the Ableo slayer...

Jesus of the UB...

Exactly. The distinction has to be made, since the Jesus of the UB is NOT the actual, literal, historical Jesus of inspired scripture.

He's just a fictitious character in an esotercist delusion attempting to undermine and destroy the true tenets of the Christian faith to leave them without salvific hope or faith.

 

[Aimiel]

I thought he spelled his name with a, "B:" JEBUS.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I thought he spelled his name with a, "B:" JEBUS.

Idiot esotericists can't be bothered with such details while promoting their stool samples.

 

[Aimiel]

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

 

[freelight]

~*~*~


Troll spray anyone? :crackup:




pj

 

[freelight]

The Spirit Alone is Life..............

The Spirit Alone is Life..............

He also talked about His Blood.

Symbolically yes, as far as the records go (genuine or creatively imposed).

If you ignore It you then trample It under your feet.

That's your supposition. Jesus spoke in symbolic terms,....of 'bread', 'meat', 'blood', 'water', etc. Recognizing such is far from sacrilege. The Eucharist has already been covered in the thread ( here, here, here )... its tokens and meanings from a UB perspective and beyond.



pj

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

~*~*~

Troll spray anyone? :crackup:

pj

Amazing how all the stinkin' esotericist whackos on a Christian website always flip the script to call Christians trolls if they dare stand for truth against all Urantia Book stool samples and other drivel.

Typical.

 

[Caino]

~*~*~


Troll spray anyone? :crackup:




pj

 

[Caino]

Symbolically yes, as far as the records go (genuine or creatively imposed).




That's your supposition. Jesus spoke in symbolic terms,....of 'bread', 'meat', 'blood', 'water', etc. Recognizing such is far from sacrilege. The Eucharist has already been covered in the thread, its tokens and meanings from a UB perspective and beyond.



pj

Originally the last supper was bread and wine. When the Pagans created Christianity they turned it into blood and flesh because that’s what they practiced inside their caves which now have Christian churches built on top of them.

Christianity is Jesus interpreted through Pagan Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and a believer in the Mystery’s.

 

[freelight]

Intermission......

Intermission......

Funny,...but couldn't enlarge it to read it better


Ok,..back to more serious matters oly:



pj

 

[Aimiel]

Symbolically yes, as far as the records go (genuine or creatively imposed).

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

He did NOT die 'symbolically' or shed His Blood 'symbolically' so when you discount His Blood and don't discern that it is His Blood then you become un-holy and reject His Covenant.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Watch what you say about His Blood, since It is the only thing which might cleanse you.

That's your supposition. Jesus spoke in symbolic terms,....of 'bread', 'meat', 'blood', 'water', etc.

That's your presumption talking.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally the last supper was bread and wine. When the Pagans created Christianity they turned it into blood and flesh because that’s what they practiced inside their caves which now have Christian churches built on top of them.

Christianity is Jesus interpreted through Pagan Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and a believer in the Mystery’s.

Now you're making Christians into the pagans which you actually are. Pathetic. :nono:

 

[freelight]

flesh & blood................

flesh & blood................

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

He did NOT die 'symbolically' or shed His Blood 'symbolically' so when you discount His Blood and don't discern that it is His Blood then you become un-holy and reject His Covenant.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Watch what you say about His Blood, since It is the only thing which might cleanse you.That's your presumption talking.

My former post here on this with links holds.
Jesus never meant for anyone to drink his physical blood or eat his physical flesh (symbolized as bread), as has been expounded on earlier. That such is 'figurative' speech goes without saying. There is no sacrilege in understanding that. The UB's account of this 'supper' has been shared, and its significance/meaning of the terms employed.



pj

 

[Caino]

My former post here on this with links holds.
Jesus never meant for anyone to drink his physical blood or eat his physical flesh (symbolized as bread), as has been expounded on earlier. That such is 'figurative' speech goes without saying. There is no sacrilege in understanding that. The UB's account of this 'supper' has been shared, and its significance/meaning of the terms employed.



pj

The Cup

5. Establishing the Remembrance Supper

(1941.6) 179:5.1 As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the “cup of blessing,” he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: “Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father’s eternal kingdom.”


The Bread

(1942.2) 179:5.3 When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: “Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life.” When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down."


Christianity evolved mainly among Pagan adoptees who would merge many of their own rituals and human sacrifice theology.

(1942.3) 179:5.4 In instituting this remembrance supper, the Master, as was always his habit, resorted to parables and symbols. He employed symbols because he wanted to teach certain great spiritual truths in such a manner as to make it difficult for his successors to attach precise interpretations and definite meanings to his words. In this way he sought to prevent successive generations from crystallizing his teaching and binding down his spiritual meanings by the dead chains of tradition and dogma. In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual’s concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form; neither did he desire to limit the believer’s spiritual imagination by formally cramping it. He rather sought to set man’s reborn soul free upon the joyous wings of a new and living spiritual liberty.

(1942.4) 179:5.5 Notwithstanding the Master’s effort thus to establish this new sacrament of the remembrance, those who followed after him in the intervening centuries saw to it that his express desire was effectively thwarted in that his simple spiritual symbolism of that last night in the flesh has been reduced to precise interpretations and subjected to the almost mathematical precision of a set formula. Of all Jesus’ teachings none have become more tradition-standardized.

(1942.5) 179:5.6 This supper of remembrance, when it is partaken of by those who are Son-believing and God-knowing, does not need to have associated with its symbolism any of man’s puerile misinterpretations regarding the meaning of the divine presence, for upon all such occasions the Master is really present. The remembrance supper is the believer’s symbolic rendezvous with Michael. When you become thus spirit-conscious, the Son is actually present, and his spirit fraternizes with the indwelling fragment of his Father.​