↗ Live site
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

  1. These references are not the ones I was looking for, but  they will suffice for now.

    The purpose of citing the below references is to show one revelatory sentence can have multiple meanings. The idea that revelation recorded in TUB is subject to but one literal reading I think unnecessarily places limits on it.

    “The divine mind is conscious of, and conversant with, the thought of all creation. His knowledge of events is universal and perfect… The very hairs of your head are numbered.” (Divine Counselor)

    and…

    “You have been told that the “very hairs of your head are numbered,” … Angels possess inherent and automatic (that is, automatic as far as you could perceive) powers of knowing such things.” (Melchizedek)

     

    As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings. Had they taken the literal approach, the interpretation for both would have been identical.  I am still looking for the other reference but I think these examples give you an idea of what I am getting at.

     

    BB

  2. 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.

    I understand your point Bradly, but I also understand B.B.’s interest in such matters.  Where the UB does indicate that the Thought Adjuster, does make adjustment to individuals minds, or as to go further, might just make adjustments to persons memories, and in these cases even adjust what was and is read in the Urantia Book and many other Books for that matter.  Personally, whether we must “transcend materialism and ascend into spiritization” would be the same thing as saying that we have to wait until we die before we can intellectually understand what has been presented in all of these Books including the UB.  But your presentation above, including that which preceded the small amount which I presented above, does present itself that you would rather that B.B., should not pursue these kind of topics or questions but, they are not “completely illogical” and have some validity if the Urantia Book context presents itself to some who possibly see more than what is “literally and figuratively” NOT “otherwise so logical” to some or others, where logical, understanding does not present itself with everyone the same way.  You brought up the Book of Revelation from the Bible as a seed for misinterpretation of the words written, as prophetic to specific revelation, but as I have mentioned in the past, I have studied that Book for over thirty years and have found that all of a sudden the UB indicates that much of it was lost, where by having reread it again in recent times, and had noticed its recent abridgment, was as the UB authors indicated, but not actually lost, because it still rings unabridged in my mind and memory of its context, where I am able to compare the most recent text and asses that which was there and now not, and determine various speculative reasons for why these changes were made, and why, for that matter, it is possible for me to have retained this information in such detail.  I can only speculate that my Thought Adjuster felt it necessary that I not forget or have this adjustment made for some reason.  Therefore, if you have no recollection of any changes as I describe does not mean that others may not have noticed the same thing or for that matter that by reading the UB’s text promotes interest in subject matter which may spark ideas or questions which they find interesting or fascinating.  So, why discourage these query at all, if they only sort out information which would otherwise never come up if not shared with others.  Also, if the topic does not interest you, you have the option to just not respond, rather than discourage out of the box thinking, where even Einstein would have never come up with some of his theories if he did not think about, what if?

    I can see where B.B. is attempting to go which this topic and although I think it might be a little to detailed, in attempt to associate this specific religious Church history with the “War in Heaven” but I would say that all of the religious history of time and specifically following the Jesus era and what followed with the various variations of Christianity, could very easily emulate what might have been going on in heaven, specifically at the time of the presentation of the Lucifer Manifesto.  However, I don’t think that the “War in Heaven” should be looked at so much as a comparison of what occurs in a material realm but more so, what this rebellion might have caused in the spiritual realm, where the isolation which it caused would seem to have deprived the spiritual realm of something which was synonymous with the material realm, where even the UB indicates that a material creature is required for experience and that this creature also requires spiritual entities in order to make them human, rather than just animals.  So, if a human being has multiple spirit entities which make it a personality, or that we know that now we have a thought adjuster, and at least one angelic host type entity along with what makes up our consciousness, would all of this have something to do with why there was a war in heaven, in that they were deprived of certain associations with us to experience what it would be like to have a material body?

  3. 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.

     

    Me here:  No, no…I introduced those words of interpretation, codes, symbolism, riddle, etc.  I was associating those with your inquiry about metaphor – a mere synonym of the other terms.  I think your inquiry is sound and sincere and of great interest.  But there is a rabbit hole here to be aware of.  You inquire about whether the words written say one thing but mean another thing.  This is a common enough claim by many and in many ways.  The UB is not a metaphorical presentation.  It is a text to reduce confusion and error….or its not.  We must each decide that for ourselves.  It reduces both for me…..if metaphorical, it does the opposite for all.  The issue is not whether some text may be taken one way or another….its whether the book is a literal, educational text or a book for priests and mystics to interpret.  I don’t happen to think so.  Again, 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."

  4. You inquire about whether the words written say one thing but mean another thing. This is a common enough claim by many and in many ways.
    That is not what I am saying. I am at the moment inclined to believe that various TUB statements can have MULTIPLE meanings.  If you read my last entry I present an example of two revelators presenting different revelations based on the same one sentence.  If you did not get a chance to view that post, I encourage you to do so and tell me what you think. Also I’d like to get your opinion on the following: “…Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one.” What is your take? Is the revelator telling us that the statement, “The Father and the Sons are one,” can be interpreted  in various ways? And by the way, I respect your opinion and maturity as a reader of TUB. That is why I come to you guys to test my theories. If they can past the test, then all the more do I  embrace them! ;-)

    BB

  5. 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?

    The world’s religions confuse the name of the “devil”.  The names, Lucifer and Satan are often interchanged and names like Caligastia and Daligastia are never mentioned.  Lucifer and Satan go way, way back in history and are part of many ancient religions, including Zoroastrianism and Judaism.  Lucifer/Satan are also a part of Islam, known as Iblis.  Besides the list below, consider looking up the name Azazel.

    Consider reading:

    Sura 7:11-12; Sura 2:35-36; Sura 7:16

    Hadith 2:302; Hadith 4:522; Hadith 6:71; Hadith 7:527; Hadith 9:124

    Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4–6, liv. 5, lxxxviii

    Ezek 28:12-23; 1 Sam 16:14-16; 1 Sam 18:10-11; 1 Sam 19:9-10; 2 Sam 24:13-16; 1 Chron 21:1-30; Zech 3:1-10; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7

     

     

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

    I don’t know what you mean by mindal.  How can you read something without using your mind?

    Have you ever heard of lectio divina?  It’s latin for divine reading.  There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation.  It’s a process.

    BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory.  The human mind is creative.  It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories.  It’s rather hard to stop it, actually.  The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.

    102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.

     

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

    I don’t know what you mean by mindal. How can you read something without using your mind? Have you ever heard of lectio divina? It’s latin for divine reading. There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation. It’s a process. BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory. The human mind is creative. It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories. It’s rather hard to stop it, actually. The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.

    102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.

     

    Scratch out the “mindal.”  I should not have put that in there.

    BB

  8. 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?

    The world’s religions confuse the name of the “devil”. The names, Lucifer and Satan are often interchanged and names like Caligastia and Daligastia are never mentioned. Lucifer and Satan go way, way back in history and are part of many ancient religions, including Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Lucifer/Satan are also a part of Islam, known as Iblis. Besides the list below, consider looking up the name Azazel. Consider reading: Sura 7:11-12; Sura 2:35-36; Sura 7:16 Hadith 2:302; Hadith 4:522; Hadith 6:71; Hadith 7:527; Hadith 9:124

    Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4–6, liv. 5, lxxxviii Ezek 28:12-23; 1 Sam 16:14-16; 1 Sam 18:10-11; 1 Sam 19:9-10; 2 Sam 24:13-16; 1 Chron 21:1-30; Zech 3:1-10; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7

    Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history. It is a Latin creation. You may find it in English translations or even Arabic writings but still not a part of Judeo history. There is no Lucifer in Jewish scripture and I am very sure of this; it is part of Christian theology. Why are you citing “Satan” or “Azazel”? They are not who I am talking about.

    BB

  9. There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation. It’s a process.

    Okay and pretty much that is what I am saying. So you acknowledge that revelation isn’t meant to be read just  literally. I provided a reference to Bradly, did you see it? This one: “Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one. ” This example definitely should jibe with ‘lectio divina.’

    BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory. The human mind is creative. It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories. It’s rather hard to stop it, actually. The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.

    102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.

    For me this is semantics or just me not referencing the correct words, so forget metaphor or allegory or whatever. But I believe you do get my point. You say it is called “lectio divina.”

    Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’  I believe. 

    BB

  10. I don’t know what you mean by mindal. How can you read something without using your mind?

    How can you not know what “mindal” is, it is listed in the UB 24 times, generally each time in association with two other energies?  In order to experience “mindal” energy, one must be able to completely blank out the conscious verbal thought, which opens the mind to complete expression of thought and communication.

    Scratch out the “mindal.” I should not have put that in there.

    B.B., why would you not include “mindal”, where it is a vital form of expressive communication, and would expand on your subject’s premise.  It is also vital to understanding physical personality.

    (334.7) 30:1.113 There are spirits: spirit entities, spirit presences, personal spirits, prepersonal spirits, superpersonal spirits, spirit existences, spirit personalities — but neither mortal language nor mortal intellect are adequate. We may however state that there are no personalities of “pure mind”; no entity has personality unless he is endowed with it by God who is spirit. Any mind entity that is not associated with either spiritual or physical energy is not a personality. But in the same sense that there are spirit personalities who have mind there are mind personalities who have spirit. Majeston and his associates are fairly good illustrations of mind-dominated beings, but there are better illustrations of this type of personality unknown to you. There are even whole unrevealed orders of such mind personalities, but they are always spirit associated. Certain other unrevealed creatures are what might be termed mindal- and physical-energy personalities. This type of being is nonresponsive to spirit gravity but is nonetheless a true personality — is within the Father’s circuit.

     

  11. Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’ I believe.

     

    Me here:  I think this is the answer to how and why the same reader finds new things or new connections in the text by multiple readings and also why we each digest the text uniquely as well.  Personal/autorevelation is always at work by the mind and spirit ministries.  There’s a quote about that:

    2. The Fact of Religion

    (1105.5) 101:2.1 The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.

    (1106.1) 101:2.2 Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.

    "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."

  12. Scratch out the “mindal.” I should not have put that in there.

    B.B., why would you not include “mindal”, where it is a vital form of expressive communication, and would expand on your subject’s premise. It is also vital to understanding physical personality.

    (334.7) 30:1.113 There are spirits: spirit entities, spirit presences, personal spirits, prepersonal spirits, superpersonal spirits, spirit existences, spirit personalities — but neither mortal language nor mortal intellect are adequate. We may however state that there are no personalities of “pure mind”; no entity has personality unless he is endowed with it by God who is spirit. Any mind entity that is not associated with either spiritual or physical energy is not a personality. But in the same sense that there are spirit personalities who have mind there are mind personalities who have spirit. Majeston and his associates are fairly good illustrations of mind-dominated beings, but there are better illustrations of this type of personality unknown to you. There are even whole unrevealed orders of such mind personalities, but they are always spirit associated. Certain other unrevealed creatures are what might be termed mindal- and physical-energy personalities. This type of being is nonresponsive to spirit gravity but is nonetheless a true personality — is within the Father’s circuit.

    Midi, I agree with you. But honestly I responded in that manner with Bonita because I did not want a trivial item detract from the overall message I am putting forth; that is, there are different levels of revelation interpretation.  In fact, there are places in TUB where the revelators reinforce that idea. I cited one example where a Melchizedek and Divine Counselor source the exact same revelation verse yet yield two distinct interpretations. The idea that one only should approach TUB linearly or literally  serves  to stifle personal growth, IMO.

     

    BB

  13. Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’ I believe. Me here: I think this is the answer to how and why the same reader finds new things or new connections in the text by multiple readings and also why we each digest the text uniquely as well. Personal/autorevelation is always at work by the mind and spirit ministries. There’s a quote about that: 2. The Fact of Religion (1105.5) 101:2.1 The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit. (1106.1) 101:2.2 Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.

    Can one’s autorevelation augment another’s revelation? Do not indwelling TAs communicate? Just throwing that thought out there for massaging…

     

    BB

  14. BB – I think you are talking about why and how plainly written text can be individualized in our understanding and utilization of the same words which does lead to the question as to the cause of this effect.  But I do think it is more a function of the individual mind rather than the words written.  I know you will forgive my prior misunderstandings related to a metaphorical interpretation of the text…..you really discuss this personalization of understanding and the effect of personal revelation upon the epochal revelation the UB claims to be.  How do these different forms of revelation interact for the truthseeker/believer?  As always, you lead us into interesting contemplation and discovery.  Sorry to be so dense.  The text below illustrates that the authors do intend for the epochal version to be “literal” I think….to clarify and reduce confusion would not be served by any other method I don’t believe.  Lack of clarity would be unintended IMO in such a text book of cosmology facts related to the purpose and process presented.

    :good:

     

    (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.

    (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.

    "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."

  15. BB – I think you are talking about why and how plainly written text can be individualized in our understanding and utilization of the same words which does lead to the question as to the cause of this effect. But I do think it is more a function of the individual mind rather than the words written. I know you will forgive my prior misunderstandings related to a metaphorical interpretation of the text…..you really discuss this personalization of understanding and the effect of personal revelation upon the epochal revelation the UB claims to be. How do these different forms of revelation interact for the truthseeker/believer? As always, you lead us into interesting contemplation and discovery. Sorry to be so dense. The text below illustrates that the authors do intend for the epochal version to be “literal” I think….to clarify and reduce confusion would not be served by any other method I don’t believe. Lack of clarity would be unintended IMO in such a text book of cosmology facts related to the purpose and process presented. :good: (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. (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.

    Okay, so epochal revelation is reduced to a literal reading. But then what about the example I provided? A Melchizedek and Divine Counselor produce different interpretations based on one 4th epochal revelation verse. What is your understanding of that?

    BB

  16. Can one’s autorevelation augment another’s revelation? Do not indwelling TAs communicate? Just throwing that thought out there for massaging…

     

    Me here:  I don’t think so BB but I may again misunderstand.  Now you approach the topic of “second hand” revelation, not directly but an opening to further discussion.  It would depend upon your definition of “augment”.  To a degree, yes, the forums demonstrate, to me, the ability to utilize someone else’s perspective to augment my own.  But we are taught that truth requires experiential personalization to be “true”, so truth cannot be transferred from  one mind to another either.  No one’s auto revelation is FOR another as some do claim such powers of transference….that they have access to that which others do not and their auto/personal revelation (or mind at mischief) is for others…oracling and channeling and portending specifically.  According to text, there are only epochal and personal revelation…not second hand.

    The TA question is very interesting and like minded folk do share some connectivity as described in several sections of the book.  Looking forward to more…..

    "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."

  17. Bradly, let me read over some of the traits of TAs and get back to you on that.

     

    BB

  18. As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings

    I don’t see different meanings in those quotes.  What different meanings do you get?

  19. Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history.

    Check out this site:

    http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer

  20. As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings

    I don’t see different meanings in those quotes. What different meanings do you get?

     

    In one explanation, we are told the verse expresses the idea that Divine Mind consciously is aware of all things. And in another explanation we are told the verse explains the ability of Angels (Seraphims) automatically to know the exact count of hairs on one’s head.  Those are two different explanations of one verse.

    BB

Reply on the current forum

↑ Back to top