Lost Comet
New member
Halloween + grandkids....what do you expect? :smack:Easy on the sugar
pj
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
The only "authority" the Bible has is that given to it by the church, who in turn use's that authority to control believers and extract money from them. The Bible has been edited and redacted many times; it's obvious to real scholars.
The Bible does NOT claim to be the word of God, that idea came later by men who made a golden calf out of it.
God is spiritually present, have a relationship with him as taught by Jesus.
Caino
Just prior to the begining of the public work Jesus spent a year or so traveling and getting to know his fellow men better.
THE TWENTY-NINTH YEAR (A.D. 23)
129:3.1 The whole of Jesus' twenty-ninth year was spent finishing up the tour of the Mediterranean world. The main events, as far as we have permission to reveal these experiences, constitute the subjects of the narratives which immediately follow this paper.
129:3.2 Throughout this tour of the Roman world, for many reasons, Jesus was known as the Damascus scribe. At Corinth and other stops on the return trip he was, however, known as the Jewish tutor.
129:3.3 This was an eventful period in Jesus' life. While on this journey he made many contacts with his fellow men, but this experience is a phase of his life which he never revealed to any member of his family nor to any of the apostles. Jesus lived out his life in the flesh and departed from this world without anyone (save Zebedee of Bethsaida) knowing that he had made this extensive trip. Some of his friends thought he had returned to Damascus; others thought he had gone to India. His own family inclined to the belief that he was in Alexandria, as they knew that he had once been invited to go there for the purpose of becoming an assistant chazan.
129:3.4 When Jesus returned to Palestine, he did nothing to change the opinion of his family that he had gone from Jerusalem to Alexandria; he permitted them to continue in the belief that all the time he had been absent from Palestine had been spent in that city of learning and culture. Only Zebedee the boatbuilder of Bethsaida knew the facts about these matters, and Zebedee told no one.
129:3.5 In all your efforts to decipher the meaning of Jesus' life on Urantia, you must be mindful of the motivation of the Michael bestowal. If you would comprehend the meaning of many of his apparently strange doings, you must discern the purpose of his sojourn on your world. He was consistently careful not to build up an overattractive and attention-consuming personal career. He wanted to make no unusual or overpowering appeals to his fellow men. He was dedicated to the work of revealing the heavenly Father to his fellow mortals and at the same time was consecrated to the sublime task of living his mortal earth life all the while subject to the will of the same Paradise Father.
129:3.6 It will also always be helpful in understanding Jesus' life on earth if all mortal students of this divine bestowal will remember that, while he lived this life of incarnation on Urantia, he lived it for his entire universe. There was something special and inspiring associated with the life he lived in the flesh of mortal nature for every single inhabited sphere throughout all the universe of Nebadon. The same is also true of all those worlds which have become habitable since the eventful times of his sojourn on Urantia. And it will likewise be equally true of all worlds which may become inhabited by will creatures in all the future history of this local universe.
THE TWENTY-NINTH YEAR (A.D. 23)
129:3.1 The whole of Jesus' twenty-ninth year was spent finishing up the tour of the Mediterranean world. The main events, as far as we have permission to reveal these experiences, constitute the subjects of the narratives which immediately follow this paper.
129:3.2 Throughout this tour of the Roman world, for many reasons, Jesus was known as the Damascus scribe. At Corinth and other stops on the return trip he was, however, known as the Jewish tutor.
129:3.3 This was an eventful period in Jesus' life. While on this journey he made many contacts with his fellow men, but this experience is a phase of his life which he never revealed to any member of his family nor to any of the apostles. Jesus lived out his life in the flesh and departed from this world without anyone (save Zebedee of Bethsaida) knowing that he had made this extensive trip. Some of his friends thought he had returned to Damascus; others thought he had gone to India. His own family inclined to the belief that he was in Alexandria, as they knew that he had once been invited to go there for the purpose of becoming an assistant chazan.
129:3.4 When Jesus returned to Palestine, he did nothing to change the opinion of his family that he had gone from Jerusalem to Alexandria; he permitted them to continue in the belief that all the time he had been absent from Palestine had been spent in that city of learning and culture. Only Zebedee the boatbuilder of Bethsaida knew the facts about these matters, and Zebedee told no one.
129:3.5 In all your efforts to decipher the meaning of Jesus' life on Urantia, you must be mindful of the motivation of the Michael bestowal. If you would comprehend the meaning of many of his apparently strange doings, you must discern the purpose of his sojourn on your world. He was consistently careful not to build up an overattractive and attention-consuming personal career. He wanted to make no unusual or overpowering appeals to his fellow men. He was dedicated to the work of revealing the heavenly Father to his fellow mortals and at the same time was consecrated to the sublime task of living his mortal earth life all the while subject to the will of the same Paradise Father.
129:3.6 It will also always be helpful in understanding Jesus' life on earth if all mortal students of this divine bestowal will remember that, while he lived this life of incarnation on Urantia, he lived it for his entire universe. There was something special and inspiring associated with the life he lived in the flesh of mortal nature for every single inhabited sphere throughout all the universe of Nebadon. The same is also true of all those worlds which have become habitable since the eventful times of his sojourn on Urantia. And it will likewise be equally true of all worlds which may become inhabited by will creatures in all the future history of this local universe.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Every credible scholar as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls and in fact every archaeological find has verified that The Bible hasn't been edited at all, but faithfully recorded.
Yeah, men like Jesus, Who testified: "Thy Word is Truth." :chuckle:
Amen. It isn't possible to have a relationship with Him without eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood.
John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Pure fiction. :chuckle:
Aimiel, you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want, that’s your right, but you clearly are not up to date on biblical scholarship.
Higher criticism
Main articles: Higher criticism and Lower criticism
In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes collected the current evidence to conclude outright that Moses could not have written the bulk of the Torah. Shortly afterwards the philosopher Baruch Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, arguing that the problematic passages were not isolated cases that could be explained away one by one, but pervasive throughout the five books, concluding that it was "clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses...." Despite determined opposition from Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, the views of Hobbes and Spinoza gained increasing acceptance amongst scholars.
Documentary hypothesis
Main article: Documentary hypothesis
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article titled Torah. (Discuss)
The medieval tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Torah) came under philological scrutiny with the development of Biblical criticism in the 18th century. H. B. Witter[year needed], Jean Astruc (1753), and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1803) separated the Pentateuch into two original documentary components, both dating from after the time of Moses. Others hypothesized the presence of two additional sources. The four documents were given working titles: J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each was discernible by its own characteristic language, and each, when read in isolation, presented a unified, coherent narrative.
Subsequent scholars, notably Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, turned their attention to the order in which the documents had been composed (which they deduced from internal clues) and placed them in the context of a theory of the development of ancient Israelite religion, suggesting that much of the Laws and the narrative of the Pentateuch were unknown to the Israelites in the time of Moses.
These were synthesized by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who suggested a historical framework for the composition of the documents and their redaction (combination) into the final document known as the Pentateuch. This hypothesis was challenged by William Henry Green in his The Mosaic Origins of the Pentateuchal Codes (available online). Nonetheless, according to contemporary Torah scholar Richard Elliott Friedman, Wellhausen's model of the documentary hypothesis continues to dominate the field of biblical scholarship: "To this day, if you want to disagree, you disagree with Wellhausen. If you want to pose a new model, you compare its merits with those of Wellhausen's model."[28]
The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of biblical studies not only because it claims that the Torah was written by different people at different times—generally long after the events it describes—[29] but it also proposed what was at the time a radically new way of reading the Bible. Many proponents[who?] of the documentary hypothesis view the Bible more as a body of literature than a work of history, believing that the historical value of the text lies not in its account of the events that it describes, but in what critics can infer about the times in which the authors lived (as critics may read Hamlet to learn about seventeenth-century England, but will not read it to learn about seventh-century Denmark).
Wellhausen's hypothesis proposed that the four documents were composed in the order J-E-D-P, with P, containing the bulk of the Jewish law, dating from the post-Exilic Second Temple period (i.e., after 515 BC);[30]
The documentary hypothesis has been modified by numerous later authors. The contemporary view[by whom?] is that P is earlier than D, and that all four books date from the First Temple period (i.e., prior to 587 BC).[31] Martin Noth (who in 1943 provided evidence that Deuteronomy plus the following six books make a unified history from the hand of a single editor), Harold Bloom, Frank Moore Cross and Richard Elliot Friedman also presented versions of the hypothesis.
The documentary hypothesis, at least in the four-document version advanced by Wellhausen, has been controversial since its formulation, and not all biblical scholars accept J, E, D, and P as meaningful terms. Critics question the existence of separate, identifiable documents, positing instead that the biblical text is made up of almost innumerable strands so interwoven as to be hardly untangleable. The J documen in particular, has been subjected to such intense dissection that it seems in danger of disappearing.[citation needed]
The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century, and, although increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.[32]
Archaeological and historical research
Main articles: Biblical archaeology school and The Bible and history
Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to, and sheds light upon, the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times.
There are a wide range of interpretations of the existing Biblical archaeology. One broad division includes Biblical maximalism that generally take the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is essentially based on history although presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BCE and later) composition. In any case, even accepting Biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century onward have a basis in history.
On the other hand, the historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the 10th to 7th centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the 8th to 7th centuries is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (10th century BCE) and the historicity of David is far from clear. For this reason, archaeological evidence providing information on this period, such as the Tel Dan Stele, can potentially be decisive.
Finally, the biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[33][34]
Regarding the New Testament, the setting being the Roman Empire period in the 1st century, the historical context is well established. There has nevertheless been some debate on the historicity of Jesus, but the mainstream opinion is clearly that Jesus was one of several known historical itinerant preachers in 1st-century Roman Judea, teaching in the context of the religious upheavals and sectarianism of Second Temple Judaism.
Wiki
Caino
Higher criticism
Main articles: Higher criticism and Lower criticism
In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes collected the current evidence to conclude outright that Moses could not have written the bulk of the Torah. Shortly afterwards the philosopher Baruch Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, arguing that the problematic passages were not isolated cases that could be explained away one by one, but pervasive throughout the five books, concluding that it was "clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses...." Despite determined opposition from Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, the views of Hobbes and Spinoza gained increasing acceptance amongst scholars.
Documentary hypothesis
Main article: Documentary hypothesis
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article titled Torah. (Discuss)
The medieval tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Torah) came under philological scrutiny with the development of Biblical criticism in the 18th century. H. B. Witter[year needed], Jean Astruc (1753), and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1803) separated the Pentateuch into two original documentary components, both dating from after the time of Moses. Others hypothesized the presence of two additional sources. The four documents were given working titles: J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each was discernible by its own characteristic language, and each, when read in isolation, presented a unified, coherent narrative.
Subsequent scholars, notably Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, turned their attention to the order in which the documents had been composed (which they deduced from internal clues) and placed them in the context of a theory of the development of ancient Israelite religion, suggesting that much of the Laws and the narrative of the Pentateuch were unknown to the Israelites in the time of Moses.
These were synthesized by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who suggested a historical framework for the composition of the documents and their redaction (combination) into the final document known as the Pentateuch. This hypothesis was challenged by William Henry Green in his The Mosaic Origins of the Pentateuchal Codes (available online). Nonetheless, according to contemporary Torah scholar Richard Elliott Friedman, Wellhausen's model of the documentary hypothesis continues to dominate the field of biblical scholarship: "To this day, if you want to disagree, you disagree with Wellhausen. If you want to pose a new model, you compare its merits with those of Wellhausen's model."[28]
The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of biblical studies not only because it claims that the Torah was written by different people at different times—generally long after the events it describes—[29] but it also proposed what was at the time a radically new way of reading the Bible. Many proponents[who?] of the documentary hypothesis view the Bible more as a body of literature than a work of history, believing that the historical value of the text lies not in its account of the events that it describes, but in what critics can infer about the times in which the authors lived (as critics may read Hamlet to learn about seventeenth-century England, but will not read it to learn about seventh-century Denmark).
Wellhausen's hypothesis proposed that the four documents were composed in the order J-E-D-P, with P, containing the bulk of the Jewish law, dating from the post-Exilic Second Temple period (i.e., after 515 BC);[30]
The documentary hypothesis has been modified by numerous later authors. The contemporary view[by whom?] is that P is earlier than D, and that all four books date from the First Temple period (i.e., prior to 587 BC).[31] Martin Noth (who in 1943 provided evidence that Deuteronomy plus the following six books make a unified history from the hand of a single editor), Harold Bloom, Frank Moore Cross and Richard Elliot Friedman also presented versions of the hypothesis.
The documentary hypothesis, at least in the four-document version advanced by Wellhausen, has been controversial since its formulation, and not all biblical scholars accept J, E, D, and P as meaningful terms. Critics question the existence of separate, identifiable documents, positing instead that the biblical text is made up of almost innumerable strands so interwoven as to be hardly untangleable. The J documen in particular, has been subjected to such intense dissection that it seems in danger of disappearing.[citation needed]
The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century, and, although increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.[32]
Archaeological and historical research
Main articles: Biblical archaeology school and The Bible and history
Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to, and sheds light upon, the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times.
There are a wide range of interpretations of the existing Biblical archaeology. One broad division includes Biblical maximalism that generally take the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is essentially based on history although presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BCE and later) composition. In any case, even accepting Biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century onward have a basis in history.
On the other hand, the historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the 10th to 7th centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the 8th to 7th centuries is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (10th century BCE) and the historicity of David is far from clear. For this reason, archaeological evidence providing information on this period, such as the Tel Dan Stele, can potentially be decisive.
Finally, the biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[33][34]
Regarding the New Testament, the setting being the Roman Empire period in the 1st century, the historical context is well established. There has nevertheless been some debate on the historicity of Jesus, but the mainstream opinion is clearly that Jesus was one of several known historical itinerant preachers in 1st-century Roman Judea, teaching in the context of the religious upheavals and sectarianism of Second Temple Judaism.
Wiki
Caino
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The Eucharist
The Eucharist
Spiritually interpreted. Granted, this is only recorded in the gospel of John, whose teachings are quite different(unique) compared to the other gospels. Some associate this with the Lord's Supper and the miracle of 'transubstantiation', however the UB simply refers to the Last Supper and the taking of the elements as 'symbolic', the wine or water representing the 'cup of blessing' (blood here being a symbol for life). The entire sacrament is essentially a 'token of remembrance', - remembering Jesus special incarnation among men, his 'bestowal' on Urantia, his teaching (gospel) and promise to celebrate this 'remembrance supper' again in the Father's kingdom.
The Last Supper
pj
The Eucharist
Spiritually interpreted. Granted, this is only recorded in the gospel of John, whose teachings are quite different(unique) compared to the other gospels. Some associate this with the Lord's Supper and the miracle of 'transubstantiation', however the UB simply refers to the Last Supper and the taking of the elements as 'symbolic', the wine or water representing the 'cup of blessing' (blood here being a symbol for life). The entire sacrament is essentially a 'token of remembrance', - remembering Jesus special incarnation among men, his 'bestowal' on Urantia, his teaching (gospel) and promise to celebrate this 'remembrance supper' again in the Father's kingdom.
The Last Supper
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
He's not being symbolic by saying that you have no life in you if you don't partake of the elements. You have no life in you because of your rejection of His sacrifice for your sins. Your teachings point out that sin is only imaginary or 'error' whereas in Truth: sin is real and it really does separate you from God and denies you His Kingdom. Your lying spirit guide who pretends to be Christ makes you believe that you can have The Kingdom, but outside of Christ there is no kingdom other than hell.
Jesus taught a gospel for three years before he voluntarily submitted to death as a shared human experience. That was the extent of his love for us.
Jesus did not teach human sacrifice, that’s the NEW GOSPEL of Peter and then Paul. They believed in blood sacrifice, so they drew a new IMPULSIVE CONCLUSION because as Jews they had always been taught the error of original or inherited sin, they had always practiced blood sacrifice. That was not part of Jesus teaching, it is part of the primitive Christian religion.
Jesus did not validate the scripture as inspired or written by God, he simply said "have ye not read the scripture".....meaning, if you had read them with a sincere heart then you could extrapolate the spiritual truths but with the obvious Jewish bias and EXAGERATED HISTORY
Caino
Aimiel
Well-known member
Please... enlighten me. :chuckle:
Evidence of a negative? Like, it wasn't his handwriting? ... or photos of him at birth, having no arms?
It's quite clear to me that he didn't have his head screwed on straight.
So? That doesn't make them the least bit credible.
Even if true, what on earth does this have to do with proving that The Bible has been edited?
Most not knowing how to read or write, that's a given for most of the populace. Paper hadn't been invented, and scrolls were scarce, to say the least.
Neither of which disprove the authenticity of Scripture, in any way, shape or form.
Conjecture and hype. Again: nothing disproved.
Big deal. I don't consider the 'scholars' who think that to have any evidence to the contrary. How do you consider that? :duh:
Yeah, He lived. That's all you believe? Well, if you'll read the excerpt that I posted a link to, from, "The Testimony of the Evangelists," you'll see just how reliable the gospels are, as well as the whole of The New Testament.
BTW: Wiki articles are HARDLY scholarly or even the least bit trustworthy.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Again: NOT ONE SINGLE historic fact stated therein has yet been disproved. You need to buy a clue. It's all TRUE.
Jesus most certainly did preach that His Sacrifice was necessary, from the get go.
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
Had John been in error, Jesus would have rebuked him. He wasn't. Jesus easily corrected him when he said that Jesus ought to be baptizing him, even though it was true. Jesus preached that He is The One and Only Way to The Father; The One and Only Truth (about God), and; the One and Only Life Eternal. Please repent and become converted, so that you can have eternal life.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Definition of sin
Definition of sin
89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.
89:10.3 The sense or feeling of guilt is the consciousness of the violation of the mores; it is not necessarily sin. There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.
89:10.6 The forgiveness of sin by Deity is the renewal of loyalty relations following a period of the human consciousness of the lapse of such relations as the consequence of conscious rebellion. The forgiveness does not have to be sought, only received as the consciousness of re-establishment of loyalty relations between the creature and the Creator. And all the loyal sons of God are happy, service-loving, and ever-progressive in the Paradise ascent.
- Paper 89, Sin, Sacrifice and Atonement
Since this thread is about what the UB teaches, it shall remain primary. Its definition of 'sin' is well defined,...not some idea of 'original sin' that needs to be atoned for by a human blood sacrifice.
See Atonement without blood
pj
Definition of sin
89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.
89:10.3 The sense or feeling of guilt is the consciousness of the violation of the mores; it is not necessarily sin. There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.
89:10.6 The forgiveness of sin by Deity is the renewal of loyalty relations following a period of the human consciousness of the lapse of such relations as the consequence of conscious rebellion. The forgiveness does not have to be sought, only received as the consciousness of re-establishment of loyalty relations between the creature and the Creator. And all the loyal sons of God are happy, service-loving, and ever-progressive in the Paradise ascent.
- Paper 89, Sin, Sacrifice and Atonement
Since this thread is about what the UB teaches, it shall remain primary. Its definition of 'sin' is well defined,...not some idea of 'original sin' that needs to be atoned for by a human blood sacrifice.
See Atonement without blood
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
I don't believe in 'original' sin, other than for Eve, who was the first human sinner. We all have our own original sins, without having to bear the sins of our ancestors. :chuckle:
The Urantia papers clearly contradict Scripture, in every regard, here especially where it says there is no sin without conscious disloyalty to deity. The Bible teaches that to him that knows to do good and doesn't do it, to him it's sin.
James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
It doesn't say you have to be thinking about being dis-loyal to God, just know better. Clearly your teachings are anti-Christian. :duh:
Also, your lying spirit left one glaring sin out of his list in 89:10.2: the heinous sin of following a false god, such as the one the UB describes. :chuckle:
The Urantia papers clearly contradict Scripture, in every regard, here especially where it says there is no sin without conscious disloyalty to deity. The Bible teaches that to him that knows to do good and doesn't do it, to him it's sin.
James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
It doesn't say you have to be thinking about being dis-loyal to God, just know better. Clearly your teachings are anti-Christian. :duh:
Also, your lying spirit left one glaring sin out of his list in 89:10.2: the heinous sin of following a false god, such as the one the UB describes. :chuckle:
Furchizedek
New member
So The Urantia Papers "clearly contradict Scripture" according to you. So what? Scripture is wrong if it contradicts The Urantia Book, that's all.
For fundamentalist Pauline Cult members, it all boils down to, "The Urantia Book is wrong because it's not what we believe." Nothing more, that's the bottom line.
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets," and then Paul showed up.
Furchizedek
Where from the beginning Aimiel? You’re imagining things that are not there. The apostles had no idea Jesus was going to submit to the death experience till the last week.
Where? When did Jesus say that he was a sacrifice????????
James is not Jesus, that's one of his brothers.
You're forcing Paul’s atonement doctrine into a sentence, square peg, round hole. The sentence is far more applicable to, and consistent with, Jesus' other teachings that his God is a forgiving, Loving Father.
The atonement doctrine and the silly teaching of hell fire and punishment is that of a false God, the God of superstition.
They are ALL credited with citations of the source but I knew that you are a waste of time from the beginning. You are too proud to admit that you could ever possibly be wrong.
Colter
Furchizedek
New member
This is what actually took place at that scene:
135:9.7 It was early on the morning of Sabbath, February 23, that the company of John, engaged in eating their morning meal, looked up toward the north and beheld Jesus coming to them. As he approached them, John stood upon a large rock and, lifting up his sonorous voice, said: "Behold the Son of God, the deliverer of the world! This is he of whom I have said, `After me there will come one who is preferred before me because he was before me.' For this cause came I out of the wilderness to preach repentance and to baptize with water, proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And now comes one who shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. And I beheld the divine spirit descending upon this man, and I heard the voice of God declare, `This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'"
As you can clearly see, over the many long years before this recollection was written down in the bible, the real words and meaning of John were changed. Thankfully however, we now have the perfect, corrected accounts of these events as kept by God's own reporters and recorders, His angels. Praise the Lord!
Furchizedek
Aimiel
Well-known member
'Lamb of God' prophesies His death, whether they recognized it or not.
Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
No, it's the clear symbolism of Old Testament Scriptures fulfilled in Christ.
That's funny, I remember at least one that said, "Citation needed."
Aimiel
Well-known member
John's words were changed by the demon who dictated the Urantia Book. :duh:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Wiki is often an excellent starting point with fair coverage, quotes, scholarship references and resource links for anyone researching on a particular subject. So downplaying wiki does not help your case.
pj
- Status