ISIS is where Old Testament Judaism was 1,000 years ago.
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
ISIS is where Old Testament Judaism was 1,000 years ago.
You're just trying to take the heat off your, "Simpleton type belief
system." Instead, it's backfiring and making you look like, kind of
a "Super-human Nit-Wit."
Your embarrassment is understandable: "When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick. :deadhorse: And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"
Did you say simpleton???? :rotfl:
I'm afraid if you were to need brain surgery in the future, the surgeon
would open your skull and to his dismay, a gust of air would be released,
only to reveal a vast amount of nothingness. Truly a tale of whoa.
Translation: Angry trolls are lonely people seeking attention any way you can get it.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Note for posting.....
Note for posting.....
Ad hominems do not contribute to the quality of discussion here, as such is veering from the subject at hand, so while we are bantering away from pertinent subjects,...its important that we try to stay on topic. I'll try to comment on some of the text you shared earlier Caino,...or continue in a direction more positive for the thread. Thanks for all respecting such an 'ethic'.
Looking forward
Note for posting.....
Ad hominems do not contribute to the quality of discussion here, as such is veering from the subject at hand, so while we are bantering away from pertinent subjects,...its important that we try to stay on topic. I'll try to comment on some of the text you shared earlier Caino,...or continue in a direction more positive for the thread. Thanks for all respecting such an 'ethic'.
Looking forward
Aimiel
Well-known member
The True God did, and had Moses write it down, so that He could be quoted and obeyed. Your lack of faith in His Prophets and His Word show where your loyalty lies: in the pages of a book inspired by demons about Jebus, the false Christ described in Urantia.
"While sojourning at Amathus, Jesus spent much time with the apostles instructing them in the new concept of God; again and again did he impress upon them that God is a Father, not a great and supreme bookkeeper who is chiefly engaged in making damaging entries against his erring children on earth, recordings of sin and evil to be used against them when he subsequently sits in judgment upon them as the just Judge of all creation. The Jews had long conceived of God as a king over all, even as a Father of the nation, but never before had large numbers of mortal men held the idea of God as a loving Father of the individual.
141:4.2 In answer to Thomas's question, “Who is this God of the kingdom?” Jesus replied: “God is your Father, and religion —my gospel—is nothing more nor less than the believing recognition of the truth that you are his son. And I am here among you in the flesh to make clear both of these ideas in my life and teachings.”
141:4.3 Jesus also sought to free the minds of his apostles from the idea of offering animal sacrifices as a religious duty. But these men, trained in the religion of the daily sacrifice, were slow to comprehend what he meant. Nevertheless, the Master did not grow weary in his teaching. When he failed to reach the minds of all of the apostles by means of one illustration, he would restate his message and employ another type of parable for purposes of illumination."
141:4.2 In answer to Thomas's question, “Who is this God of the kingdom?” Jesus replied: “God is your Father, and religion —my gospel—is nothing more nor less than the believing recognition of the truth that you are his son. And I am here among you in the flesh to make clear both of these ideas in my life and teachings.”
141:4.3 Jesus also sought to free the minds of his apostles from the idea of offering animal sacrifices as a religious duty. But these men, trained in the religion of the daily sacrifice, were slow to comprehend what he meant. Nevertheless, the Master did not grow weary in his teaching. When he failed to reach the minds of all of the apostles by means of one illustration, he would restate his message and employ another type of parable for purposes of illumination."
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Sonship with God is the core of the gospel message
Sonship with God is the core of the gospel message
And here we see the 'gist' of the gospel of Jesus as presented in the papers,....its central theme of we being God's children, and the goodnews of realizing his 'kingdom' within that 'relationship'. The gospel of Jesus is clearly repeatedly explained in Part 4 for any interested.
What is most important as taught by the later prophets and confirmed by Jesus is the inward condition of the heart and soul in repentance toward 'God', not the slavish obedience to religious ritual or animal sacrifice which are only tokens, albeit insufficient ones, of the movement of one's own conscience in surrender to Spirit.
All thru-out the later prophets,...the endless sacrifices of blood splattered upon the altars were a stench in God's nostrils,...he abhorred such slaughter (perhaps for its own sake which we've discussed earlier) as well as that it was not accompanied with genuine repentance, so it became valueless, if not powerless to effect a change in their hearts.
Now even while the UB is critical of Paul in some ways, we acknowledge that he did get the revelation of 'sonship' in his own way,...for the Spirit cries out in our hearts "Abba Father",...our spirit bearing witness with His Spirit that we are the sons of God. So some truths Paul did express, but he did not let go of the Jewish and pagan concepts of 'blood atonement' mixing that in with "his gospel", his own customized theology based on his own personal revelations woven with various adopted concepts, allegories, etc. But we still come back to the primay concept of 'sonship with God',...this is the essential focus. "We are His offspring". We are children of a loving Heavenly FATHER. This the UB strongly proclaims, a social gospel founded on the truth of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man.
Sonship with God is the core of the gospel message
And here we see the 'gist' of the gospel of Jesus as presented in the papers,....its central theme of we being God's children, and the goodnews of realizing his 'kingdom' within that 'relationship'. The gospel of Jesus is clearly repeatedly explained in Part 4 for any interested.
What is most important as taught by the later prophets and confirmed by Jesus is the inward condition of the heart and soul in repentance toward 'God', not the slavish obedience to religious ritual or animal sacrifice which are only tokens, albeit insufficient ones, of the movement of one's own conscience in surrender to Spirit.
All thru-out the later prophets,...the endless sacrifices of blood splattered upon the altars were a stench in God's nostrils,...he abhorred such slaughter (perhaps for its own sake which we've discussed earlier) as well as that it was not accompanied with genuine repentance, so it became valueless, if not powerless to effect a change in their hearts.
Now even while the UB is critical of Paul in some ways, we acknowledge that he did get the revelation of 'sonship' in his own way,...for the Spirit cries out in our hearts "Abba Father",...our spirit bearing witness with His Spirit that we are the sons of God. So some truths Paul did express, but he did not let go of the Jewish and pagan concepts of 'blood atonement' mixing that in with "his gospel", his own customized theology based on his own personal revelations woven with various adopted concepts, allegories, etc. But we still come back to the primay concept of 'sonship with God',...this is the essential focus. "We are His offspring". We are children of a loving Heavenly FATHER. This the UB strongly proclaims, a social gospel founded on the truth of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man.
Thanks Frelight
In Christianity rejecting the original gospel became the new gospel. In the original gospel the focus was the Father, doing his will in the service of the brotherhood of mankind. In Peter and Pauls new gospel the focus became Jesus' death and the assumption that he must have been a human sacrifice giving God the green light to forgive man.
Aimiel
Well-known member
The original Gospel is: repent, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (Christ, crucified). Jesus is The Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world. God rejoiced over His sacrifice the moment He was born, as the angels proclaimed, "Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, goodwill towards men," before His Blood was even shed. God saw Jesus crucified from the foundation of the world. His Blood is The New Covenant. Without His Blood there can be no covenant.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The essentials
The essentials
I see you're still stuck on the 'blood atonement' concept. For those reading along we've already covered that here (see all linked commentaries).
The good news includes the fact that we are already children of God, and in that fact, coupled by faith in the spirit-reality and potential of that 'relationship'...we further evolve and progress along with the grants and privileges of that 'sonship'.
There is no difference between the gospel message of Jesus found in the gospels and the UB, except the introduction/reception of the blood-atonement concept and some other doctrinal nuances (some things added, omitted, interpolated, etc.). It still comes back to the basic Spiritualist principle and theme of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man,...the values and meaning of that 'truth' is fundamental to the 'good news' of man's origin, condition and destiny. This is 'key'.
The essentials
I see you're still stuck on the 'blood atonement' concept. For those reading along we've already covered that here (see all linked commentaries).
The good news includes the fact that we are already children of God, and in that fact, coupled by faith in the spirit-reality and potential of that 'relationship'...we further evolve and progress along with the grants and privileges of that 'sonship'.
There is no difference between the gospel message of Jesus found in the gospels and the UB, except the introduction/reception of the blood-atonement concept and some other doctrinal nuances (some things added, omitted, interpolated, etc.). It still comes back to the basic Spiritualist principle and theme of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man,...the values and meaning of that 'truth' is fundamental to the 'good news' of man's origin, condition and destiny. This is 'key'.
Aimiel
Well-known member
No. The 'key' is Jesus's Blood. Without It, we are pawns of Satan, just like you and Caino are.
And they*overcame*him by the*blood*of theLamb, and by the*word*of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Pretending that Satan doesn't exist doesn't overcome him, it simply gives him free reign.
Some of the original gospel of Jesus can be salvaged by going back to what Jesus said about his gospel and himself. After Jesus left and Peter and Pauls new gospel about sacrificing Jesus to God contaminated the original gospel of salvation by faith, the bias of the new atonement theory became part of the recollection of what Jesus taught.
The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers
33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. 37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?[j]
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet
33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. 37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?[j]
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
sin, sacrifice and atonement......
sin, sacrifice and atonement......
Let us continue to explore the UB's explanation of 'Sin, Sacrifice and Atonement' in paper 89 -
Paper 89 (text)
Important to note is the 'redefinition' of 'sin' being the deliberate disloyalty to Deity, while 'forgiveness' of sin is established in the conscious re-establishment of such loyalty-relations with Deity. A blood atonement is not necessary to absolve 'sin' under this definition...since no physical bloodshed has such power to effect a change of conscience beyond a figurative meaning being associated with such. Only a genuine 'repentance' (a returning to God and his universal laws/principles) is essential....and rightly/logically so. One who is truly righteous is in harmonious relationship with God and does what is righteous (here, there is no belief-concept of an 'imputed' righteousness, since that is only 'conceptual' anyways). When one is joined to God loyally, righteousness is restored.
Atonement in the UB
sin, sacrifice and atonement......
Let us continue to explore the UB's explanation of 'Sin, Sacrifice and Atonement' in paper 89 -
| Paper 89 - Sin, Sacrifice and Atonement | |
Paper 89 (text)
Important to note is the 'redefinition' of 'sin' being the deliberate disloyalty to Deity, while 'forgiveness' of sin is established in the conscious re-establishment of such loyalty-relations with Deity. A blood atonement is not necessary to absolve 'sin' under this definition...since no physical bloodshed has such power to effect a change of conscience beyond a figurative meaning being associated with such. Only a genuine 'repentance' (a returning to God and his universal laws/principles) is essential....and rightly/logically so. One who is truly righteous is in harmonious relationship with God and does what is righteous (here, there is no belief-concept of an 'imputed' righteousness, since that is only 'conceptual' anyways). When one is joined to God loyally, righteousness is restored.
Atonement in the UB
God's Truth
New member
You can read the whole Bible a hundred times and that is NOT how anyone will know God's Truth.
Jesus says we will know the truth after we get his teachings AND OBEY THEM.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Lets get to the truth here......
Lets get to the truth here......
If you'd like to challenge what I wrote specifically, address what concept you disagree with, - actually deal with the propositions I shared, not simply come here to troll the thread as usual, offering nothing pertaining to the subject matter being discussed but disparaging remarks and a "because I say so" apologetic approach which is wanting.
Also, if you have followed half-way intelligently thru-out the thread, or have any knowledge of my own all-inclusive theological approach,...you'll see I do a fair amount of my own philosophizing and expounding on a subject, in this case adding quotes and resources from the papers (remember what thread you are on), but supplying my own creative insights as well, so I'm not here speaking as a sole voice for the UB itself (I explore, expound, and exposit), but have always been an eclectic voice, and what I share is to be considered upon principle, the metaphysical and philosophical content, what is being communicated in such a context, which will naturally relate to the entire spectrum of religious philosophy and spiritual inquiry. That is what you appear to lack in recognizing or have little interest in, which is what a real discussion entails.
You have nothing but your own misconceptions, polemics and presumptuous apologetic stance,.....which causes you to 'sin' (miss the mark) and fail in contributing to a discussion, at least in a creative constructive way, for the mere sake of 'dialogue'. This is part of the challenge shared earlier, which you refused to even familiarize yourself with the first 5 papers, to which you could then actually educate yourself on the material. You're critiques are that much more 'unqualified' and 'inept', and only have the assumption and claim of your own opinion. That's all you have. The opportunity however for 'dialogue' remains. It takes two to engage and sustain one.
Lets get to the truth here......
If you'd like to challenge what I wrote specifically, address what concept you disagree with, - actually deal with the propositions I shared, not simply come here to troll the thread as usual, offering nothing pertaining to the subject matter being discussed but disparaging remarks and a "because I say so" apologetic approach which is wanting.
Also, if you have followed half-way intelligently thru-out the thread, or have any knowledge of my own all-inclusive theological approach,...you'll see I do a fair amount of my own philosophizing and expounding on a subject, in this case adding quotes and resources from the papers (remember what thread you are on), but supplying my own creative insights as well, so I'm not here speaking as a sole voice for the UB itself (I explore, expound, and exposit), but have always been an eclectic voice, and what I share is to be considered upon principle, the metaphysical and philosophical content, what is being communicated in such a context, which will naturally relate to the entire spectrum of religious philosophy and spiritual inquiry. That is what you appear to lack in recognizing or have little interest in, which is what a real discussion entails.
You have nothing but your own misconceptions, polemics and presumptuous apologetic stance,.....which causes you to 'sin' (miss the mark) and fail in contributing to a discussion, at least in a creative constructive way, for the mere sake of 'dialogue'. This is part of the challenge shared earlier, which you refused to even familiarize yourself with the first 5 papers, to which you could then actually educate yourself on the material. You're critiques are that much more 'unqualified' and 'inept', and only have the assumption and claim of your own opinion. That's all you have. The opportunity however for 'dialogue' remains. It takes two to engage and sustain one.
- Status