Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Did the Midwayers narrate Church history as "War in Heaven"?

269 posts · 8 participants · started Oct 22, 2014, 5:46 PM

Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 22, 2014, 5:46 PM

I had raised the question on the previous website but, at the time, the topic did not generate any interests. Perhaps it will this time around.

Here are the parallels I see between Church history and TUB’s war in Heaven. St. Lucifer, the Bishop of Calgliari, waged an ideological war against Church authority and established doctrine; he opposed Arianism. I do not think it is a coincidence that the name ‘Calgliaria‘ and ‘Caligastia‘ are nearly identical in spelling. I feel the Midwayers may have tampered with the original spelling, for reasons I do not know. Saint Lucifer, also, was part of the envoy sent by Pope Liberius to Constantius II. Again, I do not see coincidence here; ‘Liberius’ and Doctrine of unbridled ‘Liberty’ promoted by Lucifer; Liberius and Liberty are the same words.

Further, Lucifer defended Athanasius, who contested the established doctrine of “Arianism.” Lucifer was exiled for three days for defending heresy, during which time he propagated his anti-Arianism doctrine by dispatching “Pamphlets.” TUB revelations are indited in the form of “Papers.” Are Papers synonymous with pamphlets? I suspect so. As well, TUB’s Lucifer was banned from the system capital, during which period he promoted his doctrine of liberty. This coincides with Saint Lucifer who, while exiled to a dungeon of the Imperial Palace, continued to promote the heresy. Interestingly, just as the dungeon is a part of the emperor’s palace, TUB’s prison planet is part of the Father’s world. Coincidence? Is an Emperor symbolic of a universe father?

I wonder if the war in Heaven is the history of rebellion in the Church with popes, an emperor and bishops all caught in the fray, and that the Midwayers re-formatted the history to put it within heavenly context.

You can read more about Saint Lucifer of Calgliari here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_of_Cagliari

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 22, 2014, 6:51 PM
Was this ideological war between Michael and Lucifer as portrayed by the celestials that of the Church’s doctrinal war, where you had some clergy siding with the Trinitarianism approach to divinity and others siding with Arianism’s approach? Could we consider Michael an Arianist and Lucifer a Trinitarianist? Arianism and subordinationism are similar doctrines and intertwine. Check out its description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

BB
BonitaParticipant
Oct 22, 2014, 11:39 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote: Could we consider Michael an Arianist and Lucifer a Trinitarianist?

Huh? Michael can’t believe in Arianism, because it would mean that he doesn’t believe in his own divinity. And Lucifer can’t be a Trinitarian because he doesn’t believe that God the Father, the First Person of Deity, even exists, let alone the Second and Third Persons of Deity.

I’m pretty sure it’s Cagliari, not Calgliari. Cagliari means castle in the Sardinian language. Maybe they got the name Caligastia from the word caliginous, which means dim, obscure or dark.
KerynMember
Oct 23, 2014, 4:47 PM
I think if one looks hard enough, one could find parallels to TUBs war in heaven with some period in history of almost any organized religion.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 23, 2014, 9:14 PM

Bonita wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote: Could we consider Michael an Arianist and Lucifer a Trinitarianist?

Huh? Michael can’t believe in Arianism, because it would mean that he doesn’t believe in his own divinity. And Lucifer can’t be a Trinitarian because he doesn’t believe that God the Father, the First Person of Deity, even exists, let alone the Second and Third Persons of Deity. I’m pretty sure it’s Cagliari, not Calgliari. Cagliari means castle in the Sardinian language. Maybe they got the name Caligastia from the word caliginous, which means dim, obscure or dark.

Apologies for the misspelling. I rushed that post, unfortunately, and didn’t bother to review before posting. Okay, for the record, let me just state that I am offering a possibility, which admittedly is a remote one. I recall somewhere in TUB where we’re told that the celestials revise some of our history. Maybe they did so in this instance?

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 23, 2014, 9:16 PM

Keryn wrote:

I think if one looks hard enough, one could find parallels to TUBs war in heaven with some period in history of almost any organized religion.

True but “Lucifer” is UNIQUE to the Catholic Church; it first appears in the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer isn’t a part of Judeo history or the 4th epochal revelation, nor is it found in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah the Prophet. Why did the revelators use the name of a super being exclusive to the Catholic Church?

BB
BradlyParticipant
Oct 23, 2014, 9:54 PM
Greetings BB!! My opinion is that the UB is not a metaphorical presentation on any level. That the stories narrated are actual and not merely representative of some archetype….like the parables presented by Jesus were just that exactly – stories of every day elements with a lesson within (or many). I think the story of the internal and evolutionary struggles of the Christian church do not provide any profound lesson on personal choice and free will nor on the consequences of error, sin, iniquity, disloyalty, and betrayal that the rebellion portrays. The rebellion demonstrates the potential danger still inherent that celestials and once mortal, now morontia, ascenders face in time and space. That portrayal also explains, at least to me, why God allows such darkness and brutality to continue on our world….why hasn’t he “saved” us and put a stop to all the madness?? A question that has always plagued my truth seeking for meaning and purpose.

Well, our experience is not THE plan or planned at all. It is the result of a double whammy….a planetary prince in rebellion and the resulting default of Adam and Eve explains a lot about our situation. What has the Christian church to do with any of that far more important portrayal of the reason for our state of mortal affairs? The potential for rebellion, as portrayed, demonstrates Diety’s commitment to free will and the reality of God’s mercy, patience, and love for all of his children, both high and low. We must choose and we must abide the results of our free will. The story of the rebellion illustrates that grand truth and puts into perspective the power of free will for all experiential beings.

Personally, I think the story of the church is pretty small and inconsequential by comparison. It is unfortunate that there will always exist the claim of some that plainly written words are a codex of complexity for the clever and learned to unravel and reveal for those of us who accept the face value and meaning as presented. I accuse you of no such by your sincere inquiry….but I would give fair warning to you and all others about those priestly ones who claim to see what only they can see for how else are they to be special after all?? I know of one who claims the whole text is just a metaphorical fairy tale that can be understood only by charting the stars and analyzing crop circles. Caution, caution. I think anyone with a 6th grade reading level (and a dictionary) can understand this text well enough for it to change their life, and to understand it more with each reading and each truth transcendence realized by their experience. It is big and there are complexities aplenty, but the way it presents harmonized and integrated concepts that the mind can weave into greater perspective is written, as the parables were presented, in a way that even uneducated minds can grasp and utilize.

But…..that’s just one opinion!

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 12:02 AM

Bradly wrote:

Greetings BB!! My opinion is that the UB is not a metaphorical presentation on any level. That the stories narrated are actual and not merely representative of some archetype….like the parables presented by Jesus were just that exactly – stories of every day elements with a lesson within (or many). I think the story of the internal and evolutionary struggles of the Christian church do not provide any profound lesson on personal choice and free will nor on the consequences of error, sin, iniquity, disloyalty, and betrayal that the rebellion portrays. The rebellion demonstrates the potential danger still inherent that celestials and once mortal, now morontia, ascenders face in time and space. That portrayal also explains, at least to me, why God allows such darkness and brutality to continue on our world….why hasn’t he “saved” us and put a stop to all the madness?? A question that has always plagued my truth seeking for meaning and purpose. Well, our experience is not THE plan or planned at all. It is the result of a double whammy….a planetary prince in rebellion and the resulting default of Adam and Eve explains a lot about our situation. What has the Christian church to do with any of that far more important portrayal of the reason for our state of mortal affairs? The potential for rebellion, as portrayed, demonstrates Diety’s commitment to free will and the reality of God’s mercy, patience, and love for all of his children, both high and low. We must choose and we must abide the results of our free will. The story of the rebellion illustrates that grand truth and puts into perspective the power of free will for all experiential beings. Personally, I think the story of the church is pretty small and inconsequential by comparison. It is unfortunate that there will always exist the claim of some that plainly written words are a codex of complexity for the clever and learned to unravel and reveal for those of us who accept the face value and meaning as presented. I accuse you of no such by your sincere inquiry….but I would give fair warning to you and all others about those priestly ones who claim to see what only they can see for how else are they to be special after all?? I know of one who claims the whole text is just a metaphorical fairy tale that can be understood only by charting the stars and analyzing crop circles. Caution, caution. I think anyone with a 6th grade reading level (and a dictionary) can understand this text well enough for it to change their life, and to understand it more with each reading and each truth transcendence realized by their experience. It is big and there are complexities aplenty, but the way it presents harmonized and integrated concepts that the mind can weave into greater perspective is written, as the parables were presented, in a way that even uneducated minds can grasp and utilize. But…..that’s just one opinion!

You make legitimate points, Bradly. You give me much to consider.

I have a question:

Do you put any difference between literal, spiritual, mindal, morontial, philosophical meanings ?

And…

Are all revelations in TUB to be taken ‘literally?’ (I think you answered that in your response but I want to make sure I understand your position correctly)

BB
BradlyParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 1:17 PM
Hmmmm……well, I think literal and mindal are logical reasoning, while morontial and spiritual are experiential wisdom and personal revelation-centered, while philosophy is a bridge that harmonize this duality into operational wholeness. So there are different levels of “meaning” to be had. Some are effective for material problems and some are for deeper spiritual meanings that are far more about transcendence of prior meanings or partial/relative knowledge about the nature of our spiritual experience. We are told that the height of mortal wisdom barely touches the mota to come….more variables with more meaning to come! Not all meanings are eternal in quality so not all meanings are equal, no.

As to literalism, I don’t think the UB presents any Jonah or Noah stories that are mythological symbolisms or metaphors for teaching. I have found my understanding of text to change somewhat with each reading, as though the mind makes greater connections and appreciates a more integrated wholeness of perspective in ways I cannot explain and have not experienced in any other text in this same way. And I do believe there are great patterns of relationship and organization and intersection presented for us to discern and apply. The authors complain endlessly about the limits of human mind and word symbols in their presentations, so I don’t think the UB is the whole truth about everything and that is not its function….but to give us a little more information and reduce our confusions to help us unify religious experience and scientific realities which study and measure creation.

I believe their stated purpose in the Forward….a book of unliteral metaphors would do nothing in that regard of eliminating error and reducing confusion. So, I guess I think that literalism is the method chosen for that stated purpose. Consistency requires literalism based on its message as well – the story of humanity’s purpose and place in that creation which science studies and measures. We don’t need another metaphorical fairy tale of creationism and that would not serve the stated purpose. This does not mean that each reader understands the same words in the same way…literalism does not reduce the unique perspective of each or the meaning of the text to each or even for each reading by the same student for that matter. Or so I think……

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 4:49 PM
Okay so let me be sure I understand you fully, Bradly. Your position is every line in Urantia text is held exclusively to one kind of reading, that is to say, the literal. For the sake of responding to that idea now, I am going to assume that that is your position…

If indeed this were true, then why the variations of ‘interpretation’ among revelation readers? What is causing people to render different reading comprehensions of the text? Why no uniformity? Did not the revelators factor into the book’s equation the fact that reading comprehension is not quite an exact science, and that other variables come into play in its regard?

Consider the following statement:

“I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.”

Could not there be a literal, spiritual or morontial reading comprehension of the above, depending on the reader’s mindal state or perception and frame of thought? There is an example of the Midwayers using one 4th epochal revelation verse to explain entirely two different meanings in two separate papers. I will have to search for it, but I am 100 percent sure the two different explanations exist. So then if they are able to render two separate meanings of one line/sentence, then how is it we can definitively state that all lines of revelation are literal?

BB
KerynMember
Oct 24, 2014, 4:55 PM
BB,

I can not speak for Bradly, but to my mind, his last paragraph in the post above answers your question. Specifically:

This does not mean that each reader understands the same words in the same way…literalism does not reduce the unique perspective of each or the meaning of the text to each or even for each reading by the same student for that matter.

I, also, believe the TUB is written to be read literally. But it can be interpreted at many different levels simultaneously, depending upon the intellectual capabilities and spiritual receptiveness of the readers.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 5:06 PM

Keryn, this is what I wrote to Bradly. It applies to your response as well…

There is an example of the Midwayers using one 4th epochal revelation verse to explain entirely two different meanings in two separate papers. When you render two separate meanings of one statement, it negates the literal value of the statement.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 5:12 PM
To the readership, give me some time to locate the references. Once I find the two I will reproduce them here to illustrate how revelators resort to other than literal readings of revelation.

BB
KerynMember
Oct 24, 2014, 5:16 PM
Brooklyn_born wrote: When you render two separate meanings of one statement, it negates the literal value of the statement.

I do not agree with your statement above, BB. Take the following sentence as a very simple example: The car drove through the intersection.

We can take that sentence literally, to mean that a car went from one side of the intersection to the other side. Simple, right?

When someone of my grandmother’s age reads that sentence, they probably interpret it to mean ‘The car [was driven, presumably by a human] through the intersection.’ While someone who is young today and who reads that sentence about 10 years from now, might interpret it to mean, ‘The [self-driven/ unmanned] car drove through the intersection.’

Does the difference in interpretation change the literal meaning of that sentence? Not really. It’s a matter of perspective, the background and knowledge of the reader, and their individual experience of interpreting the sentence that makes it different/ unique. But the main message is identical for both.
BradlyParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 7:47 PM
Hello all!! BB, I have not found that great a difference in interpretation by those readers of a certain level of study really. Some of course. Newer readers in their first 2-3 reads are just beginning to integrate the parts into the whole, and tend to hold preconception and no little misconception of what they bring to the text and discover within the text both. And while I claim anyone who can read can find facts and truths that can/may be life changing….it is a complex book with many technical/scientific presentation which both education and intellectual capacity serve the reader well in discovery and understanding. And all written languages are imprecise at best, although I have found the UB to be redundant enough and present the same concepts from multiple angles and authors to help clarify context for the student. And there is the phenomenon I describe whereby my own understanding changes based on repeated readings and new experiences in the spirit and in the material life both. So truly, the book does not even say the same thing to the same reader upon multiple readings.

But all of that hardly results in any conclusion that the UB is written in code or metaphor….that’s a whole other claim altogether. Reading comprehension variables, as you put it, does not equate to interpretive symbolism requiring interpretation by a code breaker (read priest). The authors clearly confess difficulty in the constraints of language and intellect of the audience both. I think this adequately explains why different people get different interpretations and why the same reader does so by multiple readings. But always interested in your and others’ opinions. This is but my own such. What does it mean that he who would save his life must lose it? Or the first shall be last? The authors even claim many confusions of certain concepts presented themselves, things they have even witnessed or know but cannot explain. Mystery. Perplexion. Confusion. Things to embrace and transcend without fear and especially without prejudice. Very interesting indeed.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 9:01 PM

Keryn wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote: When you render two separate meanings of one statement, it negates the literal value of the statement.

I do not agree with your statement above, BB. Take the following sentence as a very simple example: The car drove through the intersection. We can take that sentence literally, to mean that a car went from one side of the intersection to the other side. Simple, right? When someone of my grandmother’s age reads that sentence, they probably interpret it to mean ‘The car [was driven, presumably by a human] through the intersection.’ While someone who is young today and who reads that sentence about 10 years from now, might interpret it to mean, ‘The [self-driven/ unmanned] car drove through the intersection.’ Does the difference in interpretation change the literal meaning of that sentence? Not really. It’s a matter of perspective, the background and knowledge of the reader, and their individual experience of interpreting the sentence that makes it different/ unique. But the main message is identical for both.

Once I find the references I will show how revelation communicated in sentence format can yield multiple meanings; Midwayers have demonstrated this in the text, providing two different understandings of the same revelation verse. To address your example, that sentence is outside the scope of revelation so in my opinion it does not apply to this discussion. I should have given a better example, preferably a verse from the 4th epochal revelation or even poetry, instead of the Dr. Suess example to make my point.

The revelators tell us in the opening that our word symbols are used by them to convey revelation. But that those very words do not always LITERALLY capture the true meaning of the revelation, yet are used. Here is what they say about this matter:

2 “It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth… when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm… We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.”

Partially? They are allowed to communicate a revelation in partial form. So it begs the question, how do you identify revelation that is communicated partially? And Should one read a revelation that is communicated partially, literally?

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 9:12 PM

Bradly wrote:

Hello all!! BB, I have not found that great a difference in interpretation by those readers of a certain level of study really. Some of course. Newer readers in their first 2-3 reads are just beginning to integrate the parts into the whole, and tend to hold preconception and no little misconception of what they bring to the text and discover within the text both.

Bradly perhaps on this board you may find little difference in interpretation among participants, but outside this board there is a world of difference. I have witnessed this first hand. Take for example the heated debate not too long ago over Chris’ interpretation of the word ‘liaison.’ You and Bonita were staunchly against his interpretation. And that is just one of several episodes of finding fault in Chris’ interpretation of TUB. Yet all three of you are seasoned readers. If anything, and this is no reflection on you, I think seasoned readers are the most rigid and close minded, having been set in their particular understanding for so many years, any new or foreign concept nearly instantly is rejected out of hand.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 9:24 PM
Here is an example I found that speaks on different interpretations…

The surest safeguard for the creature throughout the long struggle to attain the Father, during this time when inherent conditions make such attainment impossible, is tenaciously to hold on to the truth-fact of the Father’s presence in his Sons. Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one. It is a fact: He who has seen a Creator Son has seen the Father.

So the oneness of Father and the Sons is literally true, figuratively true, spiritually true and personally true. That means when I read “Father and the sons are one” in TUB I am in no fault for imposing either a literal, figurative, spiritual or personal interpretation on the statement.

I am still looking for the two references. Please bear with me as I was introduced to them by Chris about 2 years ago. Scott, if you are around, I could use your concordance help

BB
BradlyParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 10:20 PM
Yes BB, I was also thinking of the claim of angelic rape and the term liaison…..and the trouble comes when someone (Chris in this instance) has a need to alter the very definition of the word “liaison” into an interpretation of intended violence – which doesn’t reflect any form of the definitions of the word chosen by the author. The UB text uses clear words to describe a situation wherein a seraphim understands the ultimate consequence of a choice (personal destruction) while those who have made that choice entreat and beguile/persuade her into rebellion against Michael by liaison forces. All in full context of a years long debate and free movement where none were harmed or even threatened by either side of the debate. I never did get the mystery of that one….and sure as heck don’t know where Chris got angelic rape or where he intended to go with that. And this is a good example of those who seek mystery and riddles – they will surely find them, even if they must invent them.

I participate on 3 forums regularly and have taken several different classes with many, many students and participated in over a dozen study groups over the decades and maintain my claim that there is not so many “interpretations” among veteran readers from around the world as one might expect…..until or unless they are sign seekers and code breakers – and those exist among biblical students as well, especially so with the Book of Revelation – where the author claimed no understanding but every fire and brimstone preacher since has a certain understanding and can predict the future by that understanding….not by the words written but by their interpretations of the words written. When I say there is little disagreement, I should say of the foundational teachings related to mortal source, destiny, and spirit connectivity. There is much about Paradise, the Absolutes, the Triunities and such Deity relationships that are way over my head to begin with. I’m not well read enough to even argue with Nigel, Bonita, and many others on this and other forums….I can hardly agree on that for which I have no understanding. I can read the words on some topics but claim no understanding of their meaning….and so do not argue. I can provide a long list of such topics. But it is a lack of knowledge and experience that delivers this inability to comprehend….not a symbolism or codex for interpretation.

Partial revelation is like Biology 101 compared to 505….so yes you can believe what you are taught in freshman biology and you will need that to understand 201, 301, etc. since knowledge is progressive as is revelation. Thus the wonder of time….which is what keeps everything from happening at once. All knowledge is a time construct of learning and applying that learned until truly known, to then know more. As to being close minded….again, not my experience at all. But your statement does tend to concur with my earlier point. All the veteran readers share is the UB itself and time in the UB….there’s no cliff notes or priests telling us what to believe…only the text guides us and it says what it says and it don’t say what it don’t say…..unless you believe it requires interpretation and either are such an interpreter or you have chosen one to explain the mysteries which you cannot understand yourself. And yes, experienced readers have a bit of an attitude about such ones – either the priesthood or those who give over their personal sovereignty to those mystical readers of the tea leaves (or head bumps or spirits of the dead or Taro or the stars).

The most foundational teaching is that we each are fully encircuited and able to find God within ourself and every other being and that none may give truth to any other but we must each transcend materialism and ascend into spiritization. We are fully equipped. We must choose this and do this for ourselves. No priests (read interpreters) needed. So why then would a book which teaches this then present its truths in riddles and codes? Completely illogical for a book that is otherwise so logical. Or so I see it.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Oct 24, 2014, 10:32 PM
Bradly, I don’t believe I implied that TUB is written in codes or riddles. If I ever suggested such I am retracting that idea. I will have to go over what I posted and see if I didn’t effectively communicate by thoughts. I am still searching for those references.

BB

Reply on the current forum