I believe that they, in general, have a very rigid mindset. I also think age plays a role; the older one is the more settled less open one gets.
There you go again! Another insult! I think that qualifies as harassment. You really need to stop.
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
Bradly, did you read Bonita’s post where I quoted the entire paragraph and recut the portions above which she said “me and Brad”, in implying only you and her “stand up against sophistries”, where the implication is that everything that Bonita has stated in this thread includes you as well, . . .
There is no such implication. Brad is his own person, as I am. He has stood up against misrepresentation of the UB on multiple forums, which incidentally I do not contribute. I consistently point out misrepresentations of the UB on this forum. Nothing at all was implied about Brad and the sophistries presented in this thread. It seems you read something between the lines that simply was not there. And hemorrhoid cream is very useful. You should not disparage hemorrhoid cream.
- MidiChlorian wrote: . . . but as usual it would seem that you may need to progress out of kindergarten and move up to a little higher grade, to be able to understand what I actually wrote.
Now that’s just hideous. How condescending. Honestly! It’s disgusting. Talk about harassment.
I’m assuming that my statement may have went over Bonita’s head as well, but check with her and see if she understood the language I was specking in print, with B.B.
I admit. I do not know what specking is.
You could be right that Church history has no bearing on TUB. But I think the topic warrants further research. In my opinion there are enough coincidences to warrant one. Also I don’t think I said that rebellion papers primarily are a metaphorical presentation. I do believe, however, that figurative, spiritual and personal meanings could be gleaned from them. (quoting me: “The topic presented in the UB is universally profound; the interpretation of its meaning proferred is trivial in comparison. So which is it? Did the midwayers narrate church history? Or did they narrate a real event with real characters in real time with real results and implications? Can’t be both ways.”)
Neither. My theory which is very weak, admittedly, is that Church history is a part of the rebellion history. The rebellion and its effects filtered down onto our world and throughout the ages.
Me here: On the first page of this topic, Keryn says: “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.”
It appears then that Keryn was the first to recognize your position BB – that the history of the church can be studied as an EFFECT of rebellion or as a REFLECTION of similar issues and repercussions?? Rather than the story of the rebellion told in the UB is ABOUT church history rather than a factual account of an actual event??
I must admit that I have been trying to respond to some notion (misperception?) of mine that you were claiming the rebellion story was a fiction meant to represent some minor aspect of mortal, evolutionary institutional religious history. Obviously my misunderstanding and Keryn immediately understood which you acknowledged by saying: “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?”
Here the topic seemed to go down a rabbit hole of controversy about the name Lucifer and who used it first. Unfortunate.
I hope BB you will take this minor point of critique as friendly as it is intended when I say that it is confusing when a theory or its defense is presented with multiple inconsistancies. By example, on one hand you claim great allegiance to ancient Hebrew scripture while on the other you quote UB text against clinging so tightly to ancient scripture in order to argue that I should not cling so tightly to the text of the UB. Say what?? You also acknowledged that epochal revelation would likely be intended to be read literally but then argued that this is not so in all cases but that figurative interpretation of a text intended to be read literally is fine and dandy. You then stated that the UB could be understood on multiple levels at the same time. This may be true as there are specific reality patterns presented therein which do impinge upon multiple intersections of cause and effect – but this does NOT mean that the text is in some places one way and other places the other way but, rather would mean that in addition to a literal reading and meaning, it may also be illuminative of additional meanings to the student – multiple is multiple and not rotational or exclusive to the alternative.
The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny. This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact. The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves. To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.
This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process. I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction.
I’m sorry you feel misunderstood and do honestly think it has been a pretty confusing discussion primarily due to a lack of clarity as to your original question and the side track of ancient scriptures. By the way, the UB is the first written epochal revelation. The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them. The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth. My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed.
I hope you will continue to discover meaning and value in the study of the UB and look forward to more interesting discussions to come. Peace.
"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."
Now my tone changes and I posted my feelings in effort at least to put you on notice and perhaps dissuade you from closing your mind!
Wait! Who are you to put me on notice? Is this your customary behavior towards women? Is this a cultural thing? Only in your mind is my mind closed. And that makes your mind really confused.
Plus accusing someone of being close minded is not an insult.
Oooh . . . is that right? Okay then. YOU are close minded and narrow minded too. Are you insulted? Your mind is so closed that there no longer is a door to open. Do you find that offensive? Personally, I find it offensive that you don’t consider it offensive to throw stones like that. I suggest you just stop it, and that’s my notice.
Here I am discussing a topic with someone whose mind had already been made. Wow. A waste.
So let me get this right. Unless you can change someone’s mind to agree with your ideas, a discussion is a waste of time? So, you need to have the upper hand, to give notice, to demand that your ideas take priority over another person’s ideas or it’s a waste of time to have a discussion. That’s close minded, narrow minded, and lazy too. Are you insulted?
Brooklyn_born wrote: Being close minded does not make you evil.
Think again. A closed mind is exactly what Judas had; it’s exactly what the crucifiers of Jesus suffered from. There most definitely is a moral equivalent. So stop hurling insults at me and accusing me of being evil. It’s insulting.
A friend of Lucifer is a person who is familiar with his issues and thinks about them all the time; a person who talks about them all the time; and, a person who claims that anybody who finds the thoughts and discussions about him ridiculous is closed minded. Maybe you’re not a friend, I don’t know. Only you know that. But you get very defensive when someone disagrees with you whenever it comes to Lucifer and his rebellion, like you’re some kind of expert on him and the rebellion. So maybe you are.
Your sly remark: …I know you are proud of your 20 years of study, but I have more than a decade on you . . .
I don’t know why you think that is sly. It is right out front with no deceit or hidden meaning. I think you are proud of your 20 years of study, and who wouldn’t be. That is not disrespectful. And I’m telling you that I’ve been studying for over 30 years. What’s wrong with that? It’s the truth. Why do you disrespect my 30 years of study? I think you do. And I don’t think you believe that my 30 plus years of study is any where near the quality of your 20 years. I think that’s very offensive. Seems to me that everything has to go your way or you’re just not happy. I’m sick of your complaints about me being close minded, sly and disrespectful, which is why you’re hearing so much from me about it. I will not just walk away and let you get away with mistreating me. And, I’m highly offended that you think you can put me on notice about anything. Who do you think you are?
Try again, Bonita. The FACT IS, I have posted 16 topics to this forum. Of the 16 ONLY TWO touch on the topic of rebellion. That amounts to 14 percent. 14 percent does not even come close to OBSESSION. My turn now….. I think YOU are obsessed with harassing people who do not tow your view of TUB. And I also think you EXAGGERATE. How’s that, Bonita? Fair assessment?
Read my post again. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about topics. I said all POSTS. And, I said on all FORUMS, not just this one. It looks like an obsession or preoccupation to me. No problem. As you say, you are free to whatever obsession you choose. I’m obsessed with the soul, the mind and the Spirit of Truth. Most of my posts are on those subjects. But none of those threads devolve into chaos and confusion like Lucifer threads, like this one has. I think you should be on notice about that, since we’re giving out notices here.
If you think challenging ideas that cannot be supported in the UB as harassment , like your claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the Second Epochal Revelation, then this is a very sad state of affairs. If your ideas are sound, you should be happy to have them challenged. You’re never happy about it, you go bonkers and run off to the gym. I’m just saying that you cannot say things like the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation or that the Universal Father rebelled agains the Eternal Son and get away without a challenge. I’m sorry you think that is harassment, but not sorry enough to stop. I will challenge every bad idea put up on this forum as long as I can read and type. So get used to it. Grow a tougher skin.
The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them. The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth. My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed.
Thank you so much for that. I thought I was the only one willing to speak up and challenge the idea that the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation. Holy cow! Just to think about that is scary as hell. If the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation then it was meant only for Christians. What about the rest of the world? Didn’t Jesus come for everyone? I’m flabbergasted that anyone would make such a claim, take the time to defend it and then get insulted when no one agrees with it. Stunned actually. Really stunned.
This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process. I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction.
Bradly, as you say above that this is or should be a “process of discussion and debate”, which I agree but, in B.B.s defense as to the topics title, which has been under attack, to some degree, I would propose that it is a viable method of presenting a debate using an “antithesis” where which this topic would seem to qualify.
The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny. This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact. The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves. To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.
The book is written clear enough when taking into account complex subject matter, or at least controversial subject matter, and I know that you did not understand my inference to an implied fictional notation, where lets face it we would not be here debating anything regarding the UB if we did not think that there is some measure of fact implied or literally written. However, I also understand that you do not support the multiple overlapping topical content within the context of the UB, which is fine and understood, but I also see various patterns within the text, by its use of specific words and which repeat within the various sections of the book that, I believe are brilliantly structured and presented through its use of grammar or for that mater the lack of its use, assuming that, as I have mentioned before, had human intervention through editing, which at that point cannot be verified or validated unless you can compare the original transcripts. Nevertheless my inference to fiction or Sci-Fi type of fiction is not intended to be actual but, what I find as a possible danger when the literal reading of this text becomes literal fact in the minds of those who may have closed their minds to some form of reality, whereby even if written as fact, with some additional dynamic underlying meaning which can be interpreted any way possible and could affect other readers to interpret alternate meanings and even act upon them, such as a subject which I have always found a possible problem just waiting to acted out, is the presentation that after death or life in the flesh, one proceeds onto the Mansion worlds, etc., etc., where the concept as written does make sense but, for those individuals who are waiting in the wings for the next ship to another world, who may be susceptible to suggestion or fanatics that the way this text is presented just might promote suicide, just because the UB says that when I die, I’ll be taken to another world. As an example I present a portion of one of Bonita’s posts which could be considered that the literal text is a fact, only by the why she presets it, regardless as to whether she can prove it or not, or whether someone less stable might take the way she presents the following as fact:
What’s a system world, a universe world, a super world, and a central universe world? None of that makes sense. If you want to break it down into “worlds”, what about the seven mansion worlds? That’s seven, not four. Actually, there’s a total of fifty-six Jerusem worlds that we have to visit. Actually, the number 56 shows up a lot. And, where do we go after the seven mansion worlds one might ask? We Go to Jerusem itself, then Edentia and all its satellites, then to Salvington and the surrounding educational worlds there, onto Uversa and its worlds, finally landing in Havona, which has many worlds that must be traversed. So how does that all add up to four?
If you cannot prove this type of statement as fact, and present it as fact, even if it is fact but mealy presented within the narration like fiction, it cannot be proved, at least with our current science, therefore must be presented with some measure of doubt, if for no other reason as to keep those who do not have the reading skills grounded to some reasonable form of reality. Believe me, there are far to many people out there who are very easily influenced, and waiting for the next scheduled flight out to Never land. I’m just waiting for someone to commit suicide and leave a letter stating that the UB’s literal writing made me do it, and the lawyers would be lining up to rack in the spoils.
- Me here: On the first page of this topic, Keryn says: “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.” It appears then that Keryn was the first to recognize your position BB – that the history of the church can be studied as an EFFECT of rebellion or as a REFLECTION of similar issues and repercussions??That is possible. But what makes this particular Church rebellion history unique is the name, “Lucifer;” it shares the name with the celestial being.Rather than the story of the rebellion told in the UB is ABOUT church history rather than a factual account of an actual event??What I know for a fact is the celestials use a name of earthly origin, that being, “Lucifer”. So that suggests to me that they can avail themselves of earthly sources (history) to recount celestial narratives (is a celestial event “history”?). To what extent, if at all, did they use Church’s history on St. Lucifer still is under investigation. And does it render the narrative fiction if that is to be the case? No. I do not see it that way. Assuming this is indeed the case, what I see is the use of elements from history that are nearly identical or at least can capture the essence of those events that took place in the Heavens. I think it is more practical to take that route than to recount purely celestial/spiritual events (language barriers?)..Besides Lucifer, another example of “history” (again, are celestial events historical?) in TUB I believe is sourced, in part or whole, from earlier writings is the bestowal career of Michael. Let me segue for just a minute to address that. Take for instance the scripture, “The Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah.” It predates TUB and speaks of Christ’s descent and ascent, and bestowal career through the seven Heavens. If the revelation already was recorded why would not the celestials make use of it?I must admit that I have been trying to respond to some notion (misperception?) of mine that you were claiming the rebellion story was a fiction meant to represent some minor aspect of mortal, evolutionary institutional religious history.I am not saying it is fiction. I think the celestial rebellion was spiritual (to be more precise, morontial) in nature so again we encounter what I believe is language barrier, which necessitates, for revelators, the use of every tool at their disposal for the narration.Obviously my misunderstanding and Keryn immediately understood which you acknowledged by saying: “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?” Here the topic seemed to go down a rabbit hole of controversy about the name Lucifer and who used it first.The fact is the Latin Church used it first. We have primary source to back that up.I hope BB you will take this minor point of critique as friendly as it is intended when I say that it is confusing when a theory or its defense is presented with multiple inconsistancies. By example, on one hand you claim great allegiance to ancient Hebrew scripture while on the other you quote UB text against clinging so tightly to ancient scripture in order to argue that I should not cling so tightly to the text of the UB.Bradly, I don’t think you understand my position. First, I do not believe that there is falsehood in TUB. In fact, it rectifies errors in older revelations recorded as scripture. Further, I have absolutely no problem with a literal reading of TUB. I think you have a solid grasp of core TUB tenets. However, where you and disagree is approach; that is, what approach at reading is allowed. You are a literal “only-st” reader. I do not believe we are restricted to that one approach. My position is that there are four: Literal, figurative, spiritual and personal.Say what?? You also acknowledged that epochal revelation would likely be intended to be read literally but then argued that this is not so in all cases but that figurative interpretation of a text intended to be read literally is fine and dandy.Yes my position is there are four types of reading of revelation: literal, figurative, personal and spiritual, as I believe is outlined in TUB.You then stated that the UB could be understood on multiple levels at the same time.The multiple levels are the four listed above.This may be true as there are specific reality patterns presented therein which do impinge upon multiple intersections of cause and effect – but this does NOT mean that the text is in some places one way and other places the other way but, rather would mean that in addition to a literal reading and meaning, it may also be illuminative of additional meanings to the student – multiple is multiple and not rotational or exclusive to the alternative.My position is you can extract spiritual, literal, personal or figurative meanings from that text. It all depends on the reader. The literal is always the base-line for any revelation, and what unifies its readers socially; the literal is what allows us to share this book with others. But it does not stop there. What about autorevelation? What about degree of spiritual receptivity to the ministries? The reading becomes less social and more personalized or individualized as we move away from the literal into the realm of figurative, spiritual and personal.The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny.I have no problem with that statement. However, I would qualify it with the fact that revelations in the book also can be partial and distorted in meaning more or less due to language barriers, and transient for some of its content.This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact.I think revelation transcends fact and fiction. What I mean is you can find truth in fiction (eg., parables) but you do not necessarily have to find fact in truth.The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves.I make a distinction between fact and revelation. The latter transcends the former. I do not believe one needs fact to find truth.To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.I do not restrict truth to the criteria for “facts.”This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process.Indeed.I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction. I’m sorry you feel misunderstood and do honestly think it has been a pretty confusing discussion primarily due to a lack of clarity as to your original question and the side track of ancient scriptures.The discussion is back on track. All is not in vain. I am looking forward to positive outcomes.By the way, the UB is the first written epochal revelation. The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them.I am hesitant to agree with you. Earlier epochal revelations were received. Were they recorded? Yes. Were they corrupted in their recording? Yes. TUB still recognizes them as “revelations” and goes so far as to reference them. There are many narratives of scriptures resembling revelations in TUB. Jesus took on the title “Son of Man” from one such scripture, as an example.The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth.And you and I would not know even of their names were they not recorded. These revelations were recorded as scripture.My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed. I hope you will continue to discover meaning and value in the study of the UB and look forward to more interesting discussions to come. Peace.In a next post i will give an actual example of approaching one revelation literally, spiritually, figuratively and personally. Perhaps that could give you a better idea.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
B.B., it would seem that Bonita’s last statement, underlined above, was really not directed towards you but to me, even if she says otherwise, I admittedly have been the one who is preoccupied with Lucifer and the Rebellion, and have contributed my opinion far more then you have, where I have in your other thread and this one continued to indicate that if it was not for the priori knowledge or understanding given the name Lucifer, that the name by itself, has convicted the name, before any evidence could be presented, as I have stated that given the information regarding Lucifer, in the UB has not presented any evidence which could convict Lucifer of any wrong doing, based on the UB narration alone. Therefore, by using the name Lucifer in the UB, whether there is any actual historic evidence through alternate names or reference, would have been a sentence of death even prior to a selection of a jury. Therefore, your threads opening premise was destined to fail but was of sound reasoning and being that your defense it true, it was actually manifested by my actions. So, don’t take what Bonita said as personally against you, because she is combining all of her dislikes, even the raping of angels, goes back to Scott (TUB), all lumped into one, or anyone that fits the bill.
- Don’t even sweat that, Midi. We are allowed to post any topic related to TUB with the exception of channeling.
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
B.B., it would seem that Bonita’s last statement, underlined above, was really not directed towards you but to me, even if she says otherwise, I admittedly have been the one who is preoccupied with Lucifer and the Rebellion, and have contributed my opinion far more then you have, where I have in your other thread and this one continued to indicate that if it was not for the priori knowledge or understanding given the name Lucifer, that the name by itself, has convicted the name, before any evidence could be presented, as I have stated that given the information regarding Lucifer, in the UB has not presented any evidence which could convict Lucifer of any wrong doing, based on the UB narration alone. Therefore, by using the name Lucifer in the UB, whether there is any actual historic evidence through alternate names or reference, would have been a sentence of death even prior to a selection of a jury. Therefore, your threads opening premise was destined to fail but was of sound reasoning and being that your defense it true, it was actually manifested by my actions. So, don’t take what Bonita said as personally against you, because she is combining all of her dislikes, even the raping of angels, goes back to Scott (TUB), all lumped into one, or anyone that fits the bill.
BB
- Brooklyn_born wrote: TUB still recognizes them as “revelations” and goes so far as to reference them. There are many narratives of scriptures resembling revelations in TUB.But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.Brooklyn_born wrote: These revelations were recorded as scripture.
Yes, and most scripture is myth, folklore and descriptions of personal religious experiences. None of it is EPOCHAL, as you claim.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Yes my position is there are four types of reading of revelation: literal, figurative, personal and spiritual, as I believe is outlined in TUB.I think you can read scripture figuratively, but revelation is different from scripture. Scripture, being mythical, is packed with metaphor. Metaphor requires interpretation but not necessarily personal religious experience. Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind. Revelation, on the other hand, is experiential and requires a superconscious level of thinking, a level in contact with the presence of indwelling Deity.
This is why, right there in the beginning of the UB, we are told that it is vital that the indwelling Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth play a part in revealing the written word as the authors intended. If you do not use the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth, if you insist on using lower levels of the human mind, then there is a high likelihood that there will be no genuine revelation of truth, but rather something like swill fostered by the human propensity for magical, mythical thinking. And that is precisely what I think is happening here with the idea that midwayers hijacked Church history and morphed it into revelation.There are a lot of similarities in history. Do you remember when JFK died and how some people believed that it was an direct replay of the Lincoln assassination pointing out all the similarities as proof that history repeated itself almost exactly? But when you dig down to reality, it turns out that most of the similarities were not true but facts spun and twisted in such a way as to fit the model in the person’s head who created it. I think you can do that with scripture too. And obviously some people want to do that with revelation as well.Yes there is truth just about everywhere, but just because something appears to be diachronically related to something else doesn’t make it true. - But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.TUB calls it Epochal revelation; and they were recorded.Yes, and most scripture is myth, folklore and descriptions of personal religious experiences. None of it is EPOCHAL, as you claim.These scriptures are a presentation of revelations of earlier epochs. Here is what we are told of one in particular:.3. “Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ..Those scriptures contain third revelation of truth. Are scriptures corrupt? Yes.I think you can read scripture figuratively, but revelation is different from scripture.Here is a revelation that says otherwise:.“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.”Scripture, being mythical, is packed with metaphor. Metaphor requires interpretation but not necessarily personal religious experience.Scripture contains revelation. Here is an example:.“The truth about the Universal Father had begun to dawn upon mankind when the prophet said: “You, God, are alone; there is none beside you. You have created the heaven and the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts; you preserve and control them. By the Sons of God were the universes made. The Creator covers himself with light as with a garment and stretches out the heavens as a curtain.” Only the concept of the Universal Father—one God in the place of many gods— enabled mortal man to comprehend the Father as divine creator and infinite controller.”.That was a revelation reported by scripture.Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind. Revelation, on the other hand, is experiential and requires a superconscious level of thinking, a level in contact with the presence of indwelling Deity.Again, there are four approaches to revelation: (1) literal, (2) figurative, (3) personal and (4) spiritual, as they are listed in the following:.“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.”This is why, right there in the beginning of the UB, we are told that it is vital that the indwelling Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth play a part in revealing the written word as the authors intended. If you do not use the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth, if you insist on using lower levels of the human mind, then there is a high likelihood that there will be no genuine revelation of truth, but rather something like swill fostered by the human propensity for magical, mythical thinking. And that is precisely what I think is happening here with the idea that midwayers hijacked Church history and morphed it into revelation.I do not think figurative, spiritual and personal are “lower levels of the human mind.” Otherwise we would be warned by the revelators of those approaches.There are a lot of similarities in history. Do you remember when JFK died and how some people believed that it was an direct replay of the Lincoln assassination pointing out all the similarities as proof that history repeated itself almost exactly?Your example has no bearing on St. Lucifer of Cagliara and Lucifer of Satania.But when you dig down to reality, it turns out that most of the similarities were not true but facts spun and twisted in such a way as to fit the model in the person’s head who created it.I see glaring similarities between the Church’s history on St. Lucifer and Lucifer of Satania.I think you can do that with scripture too. And obviously some people want to do that with revelation as well.This thread wan not dedicated to drawing parallels between scripture and revelation, although the discussion at times had gone that direction. I sought to do a comparative analysis between St. Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of Satania. I will revisit that soon.Yes there is truth just about everywhere, but just because something appears to be diachronically related to something else doesn’t make it true.I agree.
BB
But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood.
How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950’s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
Epochal – adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of an epoch.
2. extremely important, significant, or influential.Epoch – noun
1. a particular period of time marked by distinctive features, events, etc. . . .
2. the beginning of a distinctive period in the history of anything . . .
3. a point of time distinguished by a particular event or state of affairs; a memorable date . . .
4. Geology . any of several divisions of a geologic period during which a geologic series is formed. Compare age (def 12).
5. Astronomy . an arbitrarily fixed instant of time or date, usually the beginning of a century or half century, used as a reference in giving the elements of a planetary orbit or the like . the mean longitude of a planet as seen from the sun at such an instant or date.
6. Physics. the displacement from zero at zero time of a body undergoing simple harmonic motion.- Exactly, Midi. Revelations reflect time periods, hence, the term “epochal.” Scriptures would be included as they were the vehicles by which those revelations were expressed.How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch. Epochal – adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of an epoch. 2. extremely important, significant, or influential. Epoch – noun
1. a particular period of time marked by distinctive features, events, etc. . . . 2. the beginning of a distinctive period in the history of anything . . . 3. a point of time distinguished by a particular event or state of affairs; a memorable date . . . 4. Geology . any of several divisions of a geologic period during which a geologic series is formed. Compare age (def 12). 5. Astronomy . an arbitrarily fixed instant of time or date, usually the beginning of a century or half century, used as a reference in giving the elements of a planetary orbit or the like . the mean longitude of a planet as seen from the sun at such an instant or date. 6. Physics. the displacement from zero at zero time of a body undergoing simple harmonic motion.
BB
- Brooklyn_born wrote: TUB calls it Epochal revelation; they were recorded.
Could you give me the exact quote in the UB where it says that the New Testament is an epochal revelation or that the Epic of Gilgamesh is an epochal revelation? Just because something is recorded doesn’t make it epochal. If that were the case, today’s newspaper would be epochal. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word epochal as used in the UB.
Records, particularly those referred to as scripture, are not epochal. They may have been recorded during a particular epoch and represent the thought of that epoch, but that does not make those scriptures either epochal or revelatory. The UB describes scripture as letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems and chronicles that represent a certain phase of human moral wisdom. But just because they were recorded does not make them epochal revelations.
88:2.9 But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief’s fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a “sacred book.”
Brooklyn_born wrote: His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.Exactly! Poor Melchizedek. His teachings were watered down and commingled, no longer considered to be revelation. They were gobbled up by evolutionary religion and turned into theology rather than revelation. Theology and revelation are not the same thing. A commingled theologic system is NOT an epochal revelation. I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding the difference between revelation and sacred writings. They are not the same thing.
Brooklyn_born wrote: That was a revelation reported by scripture.Dude, it’s a personal revelation recorded in scripture. It is not epochal. One person made that realization by grace of his indwelling Adjuster and shared it. Other’s may have pondered that idea deeply, and as a result, had a similar personal religious experience, aka personal revelation. That happens. But when the UB uses the words epochal revelation, they are referring to visitations of persons of Deity, or in the case of the UB, writings by persons of Deity, who bring with them new illuminations of truth. That truth is meant to become incorporated into the experience of humans. Each human must recognize the revelation for him/herself using their indwelling Spirit. All revelation is made available to the human mind by the indwelling Spirit. Otherwise, it is not revelation. Even the UB, written revelation, does not become personal revelation until it has been made available to the soul by the Adjuster and subsequently recognized by the human mind as such.
Take for instance the realization by Peter that Jesus was the Son of God. That truth was revealed to him by his indwelling Adjuster, and finally recognized by his human mind so that he could answer the Master when he asked, “But who say you that I am?”
157:3.5-6 When Jesus had listened to this report, he drew himself upon his feet, and looking down upon the twelve sitting about him in a semicircle, with startling emphasis he pointed to them with a sweeping gesture of his hand and asked, “But who say you that I am?” There was a moment of tense silence. The twelve never took their eyes off the Master, and then Simon Peter, springing to his feet, exclaimed: “You are the Deliverer, the Son of the living God.” And the eleven sitting apostles arose to their feet with one accord, thereby indicating that Peter had spoken for all of them. When Jesus had beckoned them again to be seated, and while still standing before them, he said: “This has been revealed to you by my Father. The hour has come when you should know the truth about me. But for the time being I charge you that you tell this to no man. Let us go hence.”
Brooklyn_born wrote:“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.”You keep using this quote as proof that written revelation has to be read literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally. But that is not what the quote says. What can be taken literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally is the truth-fact that the Father and Son are ONE. It does not say anything about reading revelatory texts or scripture. They are talking about an idea, a concept, that no matter how you look at it, from what angle you choose to think about it, the truth-fact remains a truth-fact. You can think this idea upside down and inside out, backwards and forwards from here to Timbuktu and still come up with the same conclusion. This quote is not referring to how you should read the UB. It’s referring to the many different ways you can think about the Father and Son being ONE.
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think figurative, spiritual and personal are “lower levels of the human mind.” Otherwise we would be warned by the revelators of those approaches.I did not say that. I said: “ Metaphoric, symbolic and figurative scriptures can be unraveled in the myth-making, adjutant level of mind.” Spiritual reading, I would hope, involves reflective meditative thinking, which involves the soul and the Adjuster in the process. That is not the adjutant-level mind. And we are warned about taking lower mind approaches to religion. It’s called mysticism. We are warned a great deal about that.
Brooklyn_born wrote:Your example has no bearing on St. Lucifer of Cagliara and Lucifer of Satania. I see glaring similarities between the Church’s history on St. Lucifer and Lucifer of Satania.Yeah. And my house is similar to the one next door. So what! If the authors of the UB chose St. Lucifer (who some believe was never a saint), as the model for the anti-saint Lucifer, then who was the model for the Michaels? Do you think that because the name is the same as St. Michael, that St. Michael the archangel was the model for our Creator Son? (Incidentally, St. Michael was an angel mentioned in Daniel, scripture written by a Jew for Jews, the Jews you claim had no concept of angels. But I digress.)Brooklyn_born wrote: I sought to do a comparative analysis between St. Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of Satania. I will revisit that soon.And I think you should also investigate what St. Lucifer believed in. I’m more than certain that his beliefs had nothing in common with the anti-saint Lucifer. If the authors of the UB wanted to use the saint as the model for the anti-saint, then they should have something in common other than name and falling from grace.
How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
World War II and the Korean War happened in the same epoch as the Fifth Epochal Revelation. So are all the letters, chronicles, laws, poems, movies, books, newspapers, etc. recorded about those wars also epochal revelations? Just because sacred writings appeared within a given epoch doesn’t make them revelatory. They are included within a historic epic and they have historic value, but they are NOT revelatory according to the definition of revelation we are given in the UB.
Some words have more than one meaning and I think it is important when discussing the UB that we come to some level of agreement on what the authors of the UB intended when using those words. Epochal revelation is one of them. Just because the New Testament was written in the epoch following Jesus’ revelatory sojourn on Earth doesn’t mean that it is an epochal revelation. Just because some people, when reading the New Testament have personal religious experiences considered revelatory, still does not make the New Testament an epochal revelation. An epochal revelation should be considered a revelation for ALL people during the entire time of a given planetary epoch.
The UB defines only five epochal revelations and they are all initiated by the presence of a celestial person who came to teach and reveal truth. The UB is the first non-person, but it is written by celestial persons with the same intent to teach and reveal truth. Why this epochal revelation is different we can only speculate, but it is my assertion that it is designed for us to learn how to think in such a way that makes it easier to find the Spirit within us rather than get all tangled up in metaphor, allegory and mystical dreams.
Bonita wrote: But you called them EPOCHAL revelations, which is a falsehood. Midi replies: How so? If it is a reference to a specific period of time. Where the fifth epochal revelation would have begun in the 1950′s and could have spanned almost until now or slightly before, based on definition? Therefore, any prior epochal revelation in the past would be a reference to time or age, where in the past books or writings of that period could also be included within that epoch.
Me here: There are two distinct uses of the term “epochal” in the UB. Midi speaks here of the Mortal Epochs of planetary evolution – not epochal revelation – which has only occurred 5 times in our history. Epochal revelations are a normal sequence of occurrence on a “normal” planet in time and space. Urantia has a very unique history and lives within 3-4 mortal epochs simultaneously today….please read Paper 52 for a full description of both the normal and the Urantia progress on a planetary basis. We’ve had two failed Revelations of Universal Reality – the Prince joined the rebellion and Adam and Eve defaulted. And we’ve had two since then in the personages and teachings of Machiventa and Michael. The UB is the 5th.
While it is true that the teachings in all 5 which survive and carry forward are continuation of epochal revelation by some perspective, it is also true that those records were often written long after the teacher and the teachings were delivered and inherently distorted, edited, and rewritten by those who were not present as witness or participant. There are no records by the hand of ANY prior revelator. And the NT is NOT the teachings of Michael but the teachings ABOUT Jesus and his sacrificial role in atonement (a falsehood). The gospel OF Jesus, the 4th Epochal Revelation, is alive and restated to every ear who hears the Spirit of Truth but it is NOT a written record. While it is true that the genius of the Master to teach by stories did indeed get included in fairly good form in the NT and I certainly discovered the Jesusonian Gospel within the Paulinian Doctrine as delivered by the hands of Roman priests and emporers, it is inaccurate to say that any part of any human authored work actually is or represents an Epochal Revelation today. The 5th is the first and only written Epochal Revelation…..that is if one were to believe the claims made BY this gift (which is NOT authored by any human….again, if one believes the claims made by the text itself.
(1007.4) 92:4.4 There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance. These were as follows:
(1007.5) 92:4.5 1. The Dalamatian teachings. The true concept of the First Source and Center was first promulgated on Urantia by the one hundred corporeal members of Prince Caligastia’s staff. This expanding revelation of Deity went on for more than three hundred thousand years until it was suddenly terminated by the planetary secession and the disruption of the teaching regime. Except for the work of Van, the influence of the Dalamatian revelation was practically lost to the whole world. Even the Nodites had forgotten this truth by the time of Adam’s arrival. Of all who received the teachings of the one hundred, the red men held them longest, but the idea of the Great Spirit was but a hazy concept in Amerindian religion when contact with Christianity greatly clarified and strengthened it.
(1007.6) 92:4.6 2. The Edenic teachings. Adam and Eve again portrayed the concept of the Father of all to the evolutionary peoples. The disruption of the first Eden halted the course of the Adamic revelation before it had ever fully started. But the aborted teachings of Adam were carried on by the Sethite priests, and some of these truths have never been entirely lost to the world. The entire trend of Levantine religious evolution was modified by the teachings of the Sethites. But by 2500 B.C. mankind had largely lost sight of the revelation sponsored in the days of Eden.
(1007.7) 92:4.7 3. Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.
(1008.1) 92:4.8 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.
(1008.2) 92:4.9 5. The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.
"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."
Bradly, here is a simple example to illustrate how I approach revelations…
Revelation: “The Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder.”
1) Literal: Father is the creator of all that is. He is the originator and center of all that exist. He is creator, controller and upholder.
2) Figurative: In math, Father is the number ‘1’ and producer of all numbers. 1 is the originator of all real numbers. All numbers are derived from 1 whether added or taken away or halved, etc… 1 upholds their mathematical function.
3) Spiritual: Father as Deity, in second and third persons, is the originator of the spiritual world. Before time and space there was spirituality. In these three persons is found liaison of spiritual ministries that conspire to raise us into spiritual beings.
4) Personal: I see Universal Father in many of the acts of my own father.
BB
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Exactly, Midi. Revelations reflect time periods, hence, the term “epochal.”
That’s exactly backwards. Time periods, or epochs, reflect the revelations of truth. Each epochal revelation affected the epoch in which it was presented and that effect is reflected in the writings of the people who were affected by the revelation.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Scriptures would be included as they were the vehicles by which those revelations were expressed.
The vehicle by which the Fourth Epochal Revelation was expressed is Jesus. The scriptures were a reaction to Jesus’ epochal revelation and are included within the epoch, but they also include reactions from previous epochal revelations. They build upon one another.
