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.
Bonita, I understand your statement above, I agree that “some words have more than one meaning” and for the most part that definition can generally be determined by the context where in it is used, however I’m not sure that we need to “come to some level of agreement on what the” revelators intended, only because, in general it would be obvious that all of use would never really be able to agree totally, not to mention that each of use would bring different experience(s), education and insights into a debate just on definition. That having been said, I can agree that the New Testament should not be considered as “revelation” with the possible exception of “The Book of Revelation”, and even then I could take exception to that as well, where as you know, I have stated my reason for that, but it does not mean that the New Testament, and Old Testament, including apocryphal text, as [not] “epochal.” It is the combined words epochal and revelation which seems to be the issue, where as you mentioned the UB does present significant reference to its definition, where it is found two times in the text as “epochal revelation”. The same might be said for the word “scripture” where it has various definitions, which also includes the word “Bible” where if one looks at its root just means “Book”, and it is the implied emphasis which individuals place on those words which indicate their meaning.
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.
Yes, the UB refers to five revealing periods which it deems epochal, however I can not agree that it is “the first non-person” to be written after the fact of inspirational communication regardless of method, each involved humans, although there is still some controversy as to presentation of the “Jesus Paper”. What I am attempting to say here is, that whether revelation is presented by celestial, spirit being or angel, it has involved a human. Even the Book of Revelation was given to John, spiritually and he was instructed to write his message down, for who, his own use of benefit, no, since it was deemed important enough to be written down. The same can be said about the prophets of old, who may not have written their revelation down but they did spread this revelation by word of mouth. All can be considered as revelation but only transmitted or communicated differently but as we know, involved humans. The same can be said about an individual who may be spirit fused with their Thought Adjuster.
P.S.: [edited insertion] Bonita, sorry for the edit here but in rereading your paragraph above where I have underlined a section, and just now seem to get what you were saying there, where I get your “assertion” that you are saying that the UB instructs on how “to find the Spirit within”, which I can agree, however, I would say that it is not so much finding but recognizing that which resides in the superconscious, which I have been attempting to, over the years, describe what to look for and how to expand on these superconscious experiences. For a long time I have recognized the superconscious mind and benefited by this recognition, however it was not until reading the UB that I was able to associate its relationship to the various other conscious mind functions, where the UB presents this information in a consistent manor, however, not always literally written.
I will present the UB quotes where “epochal revelation” is mentioned, which additional text which seems to serve as additional explanation:
(1006.2) 92:3.5 Only two influences can modify and uplift the dogmas of natural religion: the pressure of the slowly advancing mores and the periodic illumination of epochal revelation. And it is not strange that progress was slow; in ancient days, to be progressive or inventive meant to be killed as a sorcerer. The cult advances slowly in generation epochs and agelong cycles. But it does move forward. Evolutionary belief in ghosts laid the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually destroy the superstition of its origin.
The following is more definitive:
(1109.3) 101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
(1109.4) 101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
(1109.5) 101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.
The last quote above might be confusing in that where it states “In the last analysis,” which could be taken two ways, where one, that it is indicating the previous quote, or as a summary type statement, although the later is the most obvious, because of the context of the remainder of the quote, although, some readers might interpret differently, and who knows how the punctuation was intended by the revelator, and edited with punctuation which could change its intended reference. The first quote of the last three does seem to present definitive narration which can be interpreted loosely, when applied to “epochal revelation”.
Bottom line, to me, I would consider the Urantia Book as Epochal Revelation, but I believe that it is inclusive of the fourth (giving that the Jesus Papers is the forth) and the fifth, however, if we were to [think] that the Jesus Papers were an addendum to the first three sections and if we did not get the forth section, how would the first three have read, even with their reference to Jesus? That by itself might be an interesting topic.
PP.S.: In reading the additional quotes that followed from the quotes above, I noticed that the next quote could be misunderstood.
(1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
(1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
(1109.8) 101:4.7 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
(1110.1) 101:4.8 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
(1110.2) 101:4.9 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
(1110.3) 101:4.10 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.
Where the sentence in blue is not related to that which is presented in red, specifically the five points, which have been posted are related to “cosmology” and since they are not “inspired”, therefore being factually knowledge, and as indicated as important but, at the same time the five point do not relate to the sentence in blue, but many readers would assume that the five point apply to the blue also. This would confuse a reader who would apply the five points to “spiritual phenomenon” as fact instead of “inspired”.
