269 posts · 8 participants · started Oct 22, 2014, 5:46 PM
Those are two different explanations of one verse.
No they’re not. Angels are the offspring of the divine mind. There’s no difference between the two quotes. They have the same exact meaning, as do the other two quotes about hair counting, 150:4.3 and 165:3.4. All four quotes are saying the same thing.
Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history.
Check out this site: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer
Bonita, Lucifer is not a character in any Judeo writings, nor is he a part of their history. Lucifer is a Latin translation (arguably an interpretation) of the Hebrew, Isaiah 14, first appearing in the Latin Vulgate, then making its way into the English translation of the LXX and, lastly, KJV. However, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, is part of Judeo history and is the person mentioned in Isaiah 14 as “Haylal.” The Prophet Isaiah represents the king as a ‘morning star’; the morning star was a celestial body worshiped by Babylonians. I am not sure why you posted that link.
I have attached a facsimile of Isaiah 14.12 for your verification.
“How art thou fallen from Heaven, O-day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, That didst cast lots over the nations!”
Haylal is translated as “O-day-star.”
BB
Those are two different explanations of one verse.
No they’re not. Angels are the offspring of the divine mind. There’s no difference between the two quotes. They have the same exact meaning, as do the other two quotes about hair counting, 150:4.3 and 165:3.4. All four quotes are saying the same thing.
Angels are the offspring of Divine Mind, but the divine mind is distinct from them. The two references do not express the same thought, Bonita, otherwise credit for this ability would have been attributed to one and not both. Both angels and divine mind possess an “omniscience” ability; that is two different explanations of the verse. I think you are trying to rationalize here.
BB
Angels are the offspring of Divine Mind, but the divine mind is distinct from them.
How do you figure that? The ability to know the hairs on your head is a function of the divine mind which is shared and serviced by angels. I see absolutely no difference in the MEANING of the quotes. Revelation concerns meanings and values.
I think you are trying to rationalize here.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?
How do you figure that? The ability to know the hairs on your head is a function of the divine mind which is shared and serviced by angels.
Exactly, Bonita! Yes, it is shared by the two…. TWO, not one…. but TWO.
Bonita, you and I both have the ability to walk upright. We share this ability because of our common ancestor who, once upon a time, evolved to walk upright; and he transmitted this ability to future generations. Now, if I write a book, and in one section I state: “Homo Erectus walked,” in another section I state: “Bonita walked,” and in the last chapter of that same book, I state: “Brooklyn_born walked.” Did I not convey three separate thoughts? And what is the common factor in all three? The act of WALKING.
I don’t know how else to explain it. As soon as I find the other epochal quotes used differently by different revelators, I will post them for your review.
BB
“How art thou fallen from Heaven . . .
Who do you think fell from heaven? Perhaps you didn’t read the link I gave you which states that Lucifer and Satan were interchanged in the pre-Christian era. There is a lot of confusion about the names of different so-called devils and fallen angels. The following verse from Ezekiel is about Lucifer.
Ezek 28:15-17
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty,and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.
These verses are quoted in TUB below and they’re both talking about Lucifer. The person described in Ezekiel is Lucifer and TUB verifies that by quoting it. The Jews were well acquainted with Lucifer and fallen angels long before Christianity emerged as a world religion. Ezekiel was written between 593 and 571 BC, long, long before Christianity. Classical Latin didn’t emerge until the first century BC.
53:1.1-3 Lucifer was not an ascendant being; he was a created Son of the local universe, and of him it was said: “You were perfect in all your ways from the day you were created till unrighteousness was found in you.” Many times had he been in counsel with the Most Highs of Edentia. And Lucifer reigned “upon the holy mountain of God,” the administrative mount of Jerusem, for he was the chief executive of a great system of 607 inhabited worlds.
Lucifer was a magnificent being, a brilliant personality; he stood next to the Most High Fathers of the constellations in the direct line of universe authority. Notwithstanding Lucifer’s transgression, subordinate intelligences refrained from showing him disrespect and disdain prior to Michael’s bestowal on Urantia. Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses’ resurrection, “did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, `the Judge rebuke you.'” Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse.
Lucifer is now the fallen and deposed Sovereign of Satania. Self-contemplation is most disastrous, even to the exalted personalities of the celestial world. Of Lucifer it was said: “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your brightness.” Your olden prophet saw his sad estate when he wrote: “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds!”
“How art thou fallen from Heaven . . .
Who do you think fell from heaven?
This is what the Hebrew says, in part, “Ekh nafalta mishamayim Haylal, ben Shakhar…”
Translation: ‘How are you fallen from the skies, Haylal, son of dawn.’ Bonita, the Hebrews did not have a concept for a celestial Heaven. The word “shamayim” correctly translates as skies. And the idea of falling from the sky is the Hebrew way of saying falling from lofty stature (ref., Obadiah 1.3,4). Actually, it was later on, in the run-up to Christian era, that the word “shamayim” begin to develop within an aethereal or ‘celestial’ context.
Perhaps you didn’t read the link I gave you which states that Lucifer and Satan were interchanged in the pre-Christian era.
If you can show me Hebrew scripture with the angel “Lucifer” listed then I will concede to your point. I have studied Hebrew scripture for over 20 years and never came across it. Lucifer is a Latin invention imported to Christian (and Arab) scripture, post Judeo era.
There is a lot of confusion about the names of different so-called devils and fallen angels.
My understanding is that revelators avail themselves of terms/names that may be in popular use to help unfold revelation to us. Lucifer is one example. However, that does not mean those names are native to those celestial spheres. I am of the opinion that the name Lucifer was borrowed by the celestials because of its connection to the Church’s version of the war in Heaven. Also, presently, I am open to the idea that, possibly, Church history was used as part of the narrative for the war as rendered in TUB.
Ezek 28:15-17 15 You were blameless in your waysfrom the day you were createdtill wickedness was found in you.16 Through your widespread tradeyou were filled with violence,and you sinned.So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,and I expelled you, guardian cherub,from among the fiery stones.17 Your heart became proudon account of your beauty,and you corrupted your wisdombecause of your splendor.So I threw you to the earth;I made a spectacle of you before kings.
This scripture is reference to the same person Isaiah references, the King of Babylon; both prophets are identifying a mortal man. You are taking those verses out of historical context. Israel was in captivity and the religious ministry, logically, concerned itself with it. I think it is a far-fetched idea that Ezekiel and Isaiah would receive revelation of matters taking place in remote worlds and interpret it the way it is presented to us in the fifth epochal revelation, when they and their people were facing immediate threats. I think it makes more sense that they would interpret revelation within the social context of their time.
The Jews were well acquainted with Lucifer and fallen angels long before Christianity emerged as a world religion.
Provide a primary source to that, Bonita. Cite the scripture. I have studied this topic for many years and never came across such scripture. Jews had no concept of fallen angel. While it is true that there are fallen angels, certainly the ancient Prophets were unaware of this. I believe this is why TUB came about, to enhance some of those earlier epochal revelations.
Ezekiel was written between 593 and 571 BC, long, long before Christianity. Classical Latin didn’t emerge until the first century BC.
And you are making my point, Bonita. Lucifer is a Latin name. It is not Hebrew.
53:1.1-3 Lucifer was not an ascendant being; he was a created Son of the local universe, and of him it was said: “You were perfect in all your ways from the day you were created till unrighteousness was found in you.” Many times had he been in counsel with the Most Highs of Edentia. And Lucifer reigned “upon the holy mountain of God,” the administrative mount of Jerusem, for he was the chief executive of a great system of 607 inhabited worlds. Lucifer was a magnificent being, a brilliant personality; he stood next to the Most High Fathers of the constellations in the direct line of universe authority. Notwithstanding Lucifer’s transgression, subordinate intelligences refrained from showing him disrespect and disdain prior to Michael’s bestowal on Urantia. Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses’ resurrection, “did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, `the Judge rebuke you.’” Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse. Lucifer is now the fallen and deposed Sovereign of Satania. Self-contemplation is most disastrous, even to the exalted personalities of the celestial world. Of Lucifer it was said: “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your brightness.” Your olden prophet saw his sad estate when he wrote: “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds!”
TUB enhances those earlier revelations.
BB
Bonita, the Hebrews did not have a concept for a celestial Heaven. The word “shamayim” correctly translates as skies. And the idea of falling from the sky is the Hebrew way of saying falling from lofty stature (ref., Obadiah 1.3,4). Actually, it was later on, in the run-up to Christian era, that the word “shamayim” begin to develop within an aethereal or ‘celestial’ context.
Yes, I understand that BB. But I think you’re completely missing the point I’m trying to get across. It doesn’t matter if the Hebrews had an evolved concept of celestial heaven. They were aware of a higher place closer to their idea of God. It doesn’t matter if that place was the clouds hovering over a mountain top or what we consider to be the cosmos today, the concept remains the same.
Likewise, the name of Lucifer is immaterial to the concept of a fallen prince, a fallen god-like individual, who was once brilliant like the morning star and now corrupt. That imagery is the same whether it used for the King of Tyre, a Babylonian prince, a Planetary Prince or the sovereign of Satania. Ezekiel and Isaiah knew the ancient story and utilized the same imagery in their prophesy because it was part of their ethos. In other words, they were well aware of the existence of a fallen god-like individual.
It doesn’t matter what name is given to this character or personality whom we now know as Lucifer; he remains the same individual regardless of his name at any given time in history. The names change with the times. Even the name, Jesus, is not the actual name of our Sovereign. His name on earth was Joshua, but people want to call him Jesus, so he’s called Jesus.
Why did the UB authors choose the name Lucifer, or the name Jesus? Because those are the names the current culture now uses to identify those two personalities from the past. In order for revelation to be useful, it must use teachings not too far removed from the current thoughts of the age in which it is presented.
92:4.1 But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented.
Likewise, the name of Lucifer is immaterial to the concept of a fallen prince, a fallen god-like individual, who was once brilliant like the morning star and now corrupt. That imagery is the same whether it used for the King of Tyre, a Babylonian prince, a Planetary Prince or the sovereign of Satania. Ezekiel and Isaiah knew the ancient story and utilized the same imagery in their prophesy because it was part of their ethos. In other words, they were well aware of the existence of a fallen god-like individual.
Sound a like Gnostic to me?
It doesn’t matter what name is given to this character or personality whom we now know as Lucifer; he remains the same individual regardless of his name at any given time in history. The names change with the times. Even the name, Jesus, is not the actual name of our Sovereign. His name on earth was Joshua, but people want to call him Jesus, so he’s called Jesus.
This may be true but then there is also “Immanuel” and “Emmanuel”:
Isaiah 7:14 | Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23 | Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I already know how you will respond to this post Bonita. Would it also not be subject to the translation of the language text is presented in? Where if one takes the Hebrew form and their religious history “Immanuel”, being “God is with us.” Then Jesus’ name as per the Hebrew would be “Immanuel” where was not Jesus have been as representation of God who is with us. Where in the Hebrew “Michael” is considered as “Who is like God.”
Yes, I understand that BB. But I think you’re completely missing the point I’m trying to get across. It doesn’t matter if the Hebrews had an evolved concept of celestial heaven. They were aware of a higher place closer to their idea of God. It doesn’t matter if that place was the clouds hovering over a mountain top or what we consider to be the cosmos today, the concept remains the same. Likewise, the name of Lucifer is immaterial to the concept of a fallen prince, a fallen god-like individual, who was once brilliant like the morning star and now corrupt. That imagery is the same whether it used for the King of Tyre, a Babylonian prince, a Planetary Prince or the sovereign of Satania. Ezekiel and Isaiah knew the ancient story and utilized the same imagery in their prophesy because it was part of their ethos. In other words, they were well aware of the existence of a fallen god-like individual. It doesn’t matter what name is given to this character or personality whom we now know as Lucifer; he remains the same individual regardless of his name at any given time in history. The names change with the times. Even the name, Jesus, is not the actual name of our Sovereign. His name on earth was Joshua, but people want to call him Jesus, so he’s called Jesus. Why did the UB authors choose the name Lucifer, or the name Jesus? Because those are the names the current culture now uses to identify those two personalities from the past. In order for revelation to be useful, it must use teachings not too far removed from the current thoughts of the age in which it is presented.
92:4.1 But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented.
So then, Bonita, why is it far-fetched to you that the celestial authors possibly could have used different histories behind the name Lucifer to construct parts of the rebellion narrative?
BB
So then, Bonita, why is it far-fetched to you that the celestial authors possibly could have used different histories behind the name Lucifer to construct parts of the rebellion narrative?
Me here: Help me out BB…what is it you ask here? It’s my understanding that the celestial leadership would have been known and taught to many mortals over hundreds of thousands of years and then again by the Salem missionaries for a few centuries and concurrent with the rise of the Israelites. So I am unclear as to why these beings would be totally unknown to Abraham’s lineage as well as the Babylonians and Egyptians…by some word symbol. The Judaic “name” symbol is morning star and the Latin named used means the same as the Jewish symbol, so the name used in translation was equivocal to the name used by the Jews who translated their word from another or several other word symbols even older. It is the being, and not the name of the being as confined to any one language, that was known in legend and in symbology that is presented in the UB with far more details….but again, with but a word symbol of designated individualization.
Again, if the purpose of the UB is as stated…to eliminate error and reduce confusions….then the history presented is the history in fact. This is not an allegory or metaphoric presentation. Sorry but not getting the name issue at all or the “different histories”…..there’s only one history, albeit many legends and fables and fallacies attached over the millennia by both oral traditions and language translations. Are you saying that the UB version is inaccurate? And that because of the words in the Old Testament? I look forward to further illuminations. Thanks.
"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."
So then, Bonita, why is it far-fetched to you that the celestial authors possibly could have used different histories behind the name Lucifer to construct parts of the rebellion narrative? Me here: Help me out BB…what is it you ask here? It’s my understanding that the celestial leadership would have been known and taught to many mortals over hundreds of thousands of years and then again by the Salem missionaries for a few centuries and concurrent with the rise of the Israelites. So I am unclear as to why these beings would be totally unknown to Abraham’s lineage as well as the Babylonians and Egyptians…by some word symbol. The Judaic “name” symbol is morning star and the Latin named used means the same as the Jewish symbol, so the name used in translation was equivocal to the name used by the Jews who translated their word from another or several other word symbols even older. It is the being, and not the name of the being as confined to any one language, that was known in legend and in symbology that is presented in the UB with far more details….but again, with but a word symbol of designated individualization. Again, if the purpose of the UB is as stated…to eliminate error and reduce confusions….then the history presented is the history in fact. This is not an allegory or metaphoric presentation. Sorry but not getting the name issue at all or the “different histories”…..there’s only one history, albeit many legends and fables and fallacies attached over the millennia by both oral traditions and language translations. Are you saying that the UB version is inaccurate? And that because of the words in the Old Testament? I look forward to further illuminations. Thanks.
I am not saying the UB version is inaccurate. In fact, TUB clarifies many of third epochal revelations, and Isaiah’s prophecy is one example. My research has led me to the possibility that the celestial authors used some of the Latin Church’s history to construct the narrative for the war in Heaven, just as they did with Jesus’ New Testament history to construct the Jesus narrative.
As for names, morning star was a symbol used by the Hebrews to represent a mortal king of Babylon; Isaiah referred to him as “Haylal, ben Shakhar.” Lucifer is a later invention of the Latin Church; it is in the Latin Vulgate that we are first introduced to the fall of deity. So what we have are two religions interpreting a revelation differently; Isaiah the Jew interprets morning star or the planet Venus as the symbol of a mortal king, while the Latin Church’s translation reflects the idea that the morning star was a literal celestial entity and not a celestial body. The concept of a fallen angel was foreign to the Jews.
If you have not had a chance, please check out the links I posted, and compare Saint Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of TUB.
BB
Lucifer was/is not an “invention” IMO. He is a real celestial and his story is real as well. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “construct a narrative” – it presumes a fictitious foundation it would appear to me. A form of metaphor once again. There either was a rebellion or not and either the system sovereign rebelled or he did not. Still confused.
"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."
Lucifer was/is not an “invention” IMO. He is a real celestial and his story is real as well. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “construct a narrative” – it presumes a fictitious foundation it would appear to me. A form of metaphor once again. There either was a rebellion or not and either the system sovereign rebelled or he did not. Still confused.
BB
Bradly, I would like your opinion on the following quote. I mentioned it before but don’t recall if you addressed it directly.
“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.”
My question to you is based on that statement am I allowed to interpret “Father and the Sons are one” figuratively?
BB
I think the terms listed are to be applied in the context delivered and they don’t appear as optional selections but an all inclusive description of a declared fact – in ALL ways and in EVERY way: ““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.” We are being told that for those so created by the Sons, it is the Son who represents the Father while his attainment by the creature remains impossible in time and space. And I think this statement is even more pertinent to those creatures without the TA to acknowledge this fact as it was the failure to believe this literalism that led to rebellion. The very existence of God was questioned by his lack of personal “presence” in “local” celestial affairs and Michael’s power and authority were disputed as a metaphorical fairy tale or legend. This quote would appear to me to be an unequivocal declaration of fact. The celestials must also exercise faith in that which is unseen and unknowable as well it seems.
"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."
I think the terms listed are to be applied in the context delivered and they don’t appear as optional selections but an all inclusive description of a declared fact – in ALL ways and in EVERY way: ““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.” We are being told that for those so created by the Sons, it is the Son who represents the Father while his attainment by the creature remains impossible in time and space. And I think this statement is even more pertinent to those creatures without the TA to acknowledge this fact as it was the failure to believe this literalism that led to rebellion. The very existence of God was questioned by his lack of personal “presence” in “local” celestial affairs and Michael’s power and authority were disputed as a metaphorical fairy tale or legend. This quote would appear to me to be an unequivocal declaration of fact. The celestials must also exercise faith in that which is unseen and unknowable as well it seems.
My understanding of that reference is different from yours. I believe it tells us that there are different interpretations of revelation; literal, personal, figurative and spiritual are the different approaches to interpretation.
BB
Well….that seems an odd and rather expansive supposition given the context of the Paper:
(361.1) 32:3.6 The farther down the scale of life we go, the more difficult it becomes to locate, with the eye of faith, the invisible Father. The lower creatures — and sometimes even the higher personalities — find it difficult always to envisage the Universal Father in his Creator Sons. And so, pending the time of their spiritual exaltation, when perfection of development will enable them to see God in person, they grow weary in progression, entertain spiritual doubts, stumble into confusion, and thus isolate themselves from the progressive spiritual aims of their time and universe. In this way they lose the ability to see the Father when beholding the Creator Son. 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.
(361.2) 32:3.7 The personalities of a given universe are settled and dependable, at the start, only in accordance with their degree of kinship to Deity. When creature origin departs sufficiently far from the original and divine Sources, whether we are dealing with the Sons of God or the creatures of ministry belonging to the Infinite Spirit, there is an increase in the possibility of disharmony, confusion, and sometimes rebellion — sin.
(361.3) 32:3.8 Excepting perfect beings of Deity origin, all will creatures in the superuniverses are of evolutionary nature, beginning in lowly estate and climbing ever upward, in reality inward. Even highly spiritual personalities continue to ascend the scale of life by progressive translations from life to life and from sphere to sphere. And in the case of those who entertain the Mystery Monitors, there is indeed no limit to the possible heights of their spiritual ascent and universe attainment.
"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."
I am not sure your explanation fits this particular reference, Bradly. There were many personalities with indwelling TAs who joined the rebellion. Could you explain “figuratively,” “spiritually” and “personally” and contrast them against “literally.”
BB
My question to you is based on that statement am I allowed to interpret “Father and the Sons are one” figuratively?
Me here: Of course you are allowed whatever your free will allows by your so choosing. But just because we are allowed to be incorrect, does not make something correct either. I am most doubtful of my own conclusions and opinions; how can I then not also be a little skeptical of the conclusions of others? No insult intended by my disagreements here.
"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."
