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

BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 12:22 AM
Brooklyn_born wrote:  Are you discounting the words of Christ as they are recorded in the New Testament and reproduced by celestials in various places in TUB?

I’m not discounting Christ’s words, I’m discounting a man’s interpretation of Christ’s words collected in a volume called the New Testament. Most of the New Testament is written by Paul and other people who never knew Christ.

Brooklyn_born wrote: Are you saying Paul did not have a joint venture with his TA and that none of Bible scripture could be considered revelation?

I am saying that Paul claimed to have visions of Jesus and talks with Jesus but I put as much credence in Paul’s experience as I do the current crop of channelers who claim to have counsel with Michael. There’s no denying that Paul had a conversion and that his personal religious experiences were revelations to him. BUT PAUL’S EXPERIENCES ARE NOT EPOCHAL REVELATIONS, THEY ARE PERSONAL AUTO-REVELATIONS. I don’t know how to get that point across to you without yelling. It seems like your mind is completely closed on this. (turnabout is fair play).

Brooklyn_born wrote: Do you apply this to TUB, out of curiosity?

Was the UB written by humans? Jesus said: ” . . . <em style=”color: #000000;”>nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible.”   But putting that aside, even the authors of the UB admit that it is partial, transient and practically adapted to local conditions. So yeah, they say it’s not infallible.

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.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Bonita, the 4th epochal revelation came in the form of written words (scripture), just as the 5th epochal revelation came in the form of written words.

So wait. The Fourth Epochal Revelation was a book? Jesus was a book? And all this time I thought he was a man. How stupid of me. I’m sure he’d love to know that he’s a book. Hmmmm. So Jesus is a book of written words huh? Amazing! Really amazing. That’s right up there with the references hormone.

Brooklyn_born wrote: As a matter of fact, ALL EPOCHAL REVELATION is delivered in written form.

OMG! So Melchizedek, the third epochal revelation, was a book too! I can’t believe this! How did I miss this? I must be an idiot. Both Jesus and Melchizedek were books. It’s like I’m in some kinda parallel universe or something. I never knew that. How did I live all this time and not know that? I’m mystified.

So wait , wait . . . . Adam and Eve, the second epochal revelation were books too? And the first epochal revelation, the Planetary Prince was a book? Damn! Where are these books so I can read them? All this time wasted and I could have just read the books.

Brooklyn_born wrote: “Woman, where are your accusers? did no man remain to stone you?” And the woman, lifting up her eyes, answered, “No man, Lord.” And then said Jesus: “I know about you; neither do I condemn you. Go your way in peace.” And this woman, Hildana, forsook her wicked husband and joined herself to the disciples of the kingdom.” (162:3;.5 cf., John 8.11)

Now wait just a minute. Here’s John’s version:

  John   8

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered round him, and he sat down to teach them.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

Jesus straightened up and asked her, Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?

No-one, sir, she said. Then neither do I condemn you, Jesus declared. Go now and leave your life of sin.

As you can see, in John’s version Jesus said: “Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.” But in actuality Jesus never said that. He said nothing about her leaving a life of sin. He said, “Go your way in peace.” This is where John introduced his own prejudice to corrupt Jesus’ words. Neither is there any mention of her name or that her husband is the one who forced her into prostitution. John’s version is completely empty of value to me. John’s version is teaching first century values whereas Jesus was teaching timeless values.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

Bonita, when did the 4th epochal revelation occur and how did this revelation survive after that period ?

You know when Jesus lived, why ask such a question? How did Jesus’ gospel survive 2000+ years, you ask?   Maybe you’ve heard of the Spirit of Truth?

194:2.1 Jesus lived on earth and taught a gospel which redeemed man from the superstition that he was a child of the devil and elevated him to the dignity of a faith son of God. Jesus’ message, as he preached it and lived it in his day, was an effective solvent for man’s spiritual difficulties in that day of its statement. And now that he has personally left the world, he sends in his place his Spirit of Truth, who is designed to live in man and, for each new generation, to restate the Jesus message so that every new group of mortals to appear upon the face of the earth shall have a new and up-to-date version of the gospel, just such personal enlightenment and group guidance as will prove to be an effective solvent for man’s ever-new and varied spiritual difficulties.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 12:31 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

It cannot be both. Either the message is partial or the understanding is partial. Either a) the revelators are communicating a partial revelation and we are capable of fully understand it, or b) we are unable to fully understand a complete revelation given by them. Based on the reference I provided, it is choice a).

Allow me to reproduce this quote again:

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.

Brooklyn_born wrote:True, but that is not relevant to the reference I gave you. The celestials are owning up to the fact that they are handicapped by language when conveying revelation. And that some of their revelations are partial and distorts, more or less, meanings of concepts.

They are not admitting that their revelations distort the meaning of concepts at all. They admit that there may not be a word in the English language they can use so they use a new word that may become distorted because of a lack of understanding of their motives for choosing the word. They are NOT deliberating distorting anything. That would not be in line with the attitude of the universe to teaching. Deliberate distortion is something your friend Lucifer did. Don’t mix up your friend’s madness with the intention of the celestials who wrote the UB.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 12:41 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

It is not so much slamming the door shut. It just that it takes considerable effort on my part to explain this stuff especially at times when it calls for detailed explanations. I feel like it is a lost battle to expend the energy because at every turn you rebuff my explanations. I cannot even get a “I will look into that” from you. I dunno

Sorry you have to expend so much energy. I spend a lot of time, but not much energy. It’s effortless, actually. I believe you think I’m rebuffing your explanations when what I’m doing is trying to show you where you are going off the rails when it comes to the UB. I think it’s a lack of understanding of the UB, not a lack of understanding of Kabbalah. And the reason you can’t get an “I will look into that,” from me is because I’ve already looked into it, you just refuse to accept that. Door slammed again. I wouldn’t bother posting something if I didn’t know something about it. I’m under the impression that you think I don’t know what I’m talking about and that is sad, very sad, and I suspect a tiny bit sexist on some level, although I can’t prove that. It’s just a hunch.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 1:00 AM

Bonita wrote:

I’m not discounting Christ’s words, I’m discounting a man’s interpretation of Christ’s words collected in a volume called the New Testament.

So then at least you accept the words of Christ as they are recorded in the New Testament as “revelation.” Yes?

I am saying that Paul claimed to have visions of Jesus and talks with Jesus but I put as much credence in Paul’s experience as I do the current crop of channelers who claim to have counsel with Michael.

Do you discount the following:

“When the apostle spoke of being “caught up to the third heaven,” he referred to that experience in which his Adjuster was detached during sleep and in this unusual state made a projection to the third of the seven mansion worlds”

If Paul is unreliable why did the Revelator source his experience to expound on the function of Thought Adjusters?

There’s no denying that Paul had a conversion and that his personal religious experiences were revelations to him. BUT PAUL’S EXPERIENCES ARE NOT EPOCHAL REVELATIONS, THEY ARE PERSONAL AUTO-REVELATIONS.

Yes, his experience is auto-revelatory, but it is a part of epochal revelation as an example to further elaborate on the function of TAs.

I don’t know how to get that point across to you without yelling. It seems like your mind is completely closed on this. (turnabout is fair play).

Remember, Bonita, you are the one contesting the ideas I am putting forth, not the other way around. It is you that needs the open mind to entertain new ideas.

Was the UB written by humans?

Well obviously the revelation came through a human subject. So, yes.

Jesus said: ” nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible.” But putting that aside, even the authors of the UB admit that it is partial, transient and practically adapted to local conditions. So yeah, they say it’s not infallible.

And that is what I have been saying all along though you opposed me on that issue.

So wait. The Fourth Epochal Revelation was a book? Jesus was a book?

No but they are “COMMUNICATED” through books, written words, on pages.

And all this time I thought he was a man.

Bonita, does Jesus live in your life time? Have you met him? How did you come to know about him? Was it not through “epochal revelation” ? Is this epochal revelation a human being?

OMG! So Melchizedek, the third epochal revelation, was a book too! I can’t believe this! How did I miss this? I must be an idiot. Both Jesus and Melchizedek were books. It’s like I’m in some kinda parallel universe or something. I never knew that. How did I live all this time and not know that? I’m mystified.

It is sarcastic replies like this that convince me you are close minded, Bonita. I ask myself why bother putting in the effort. Bonita, there is the scripture of Adam and Eve, there are sumerian epics, there is Gnostic scripture which speak of Melchizedek. These are the recordings of earlier epochal revelations.

So wait , wait . . . . Adam and Eve, the second epochal revelation were books too? And the first epochal revelation, the Planetary Prince was a book?

Damn! Where are these books so I can read them? All this time wasted and I could have just read the books.

Sumerian creation tales are the first epochal revelation. Here is what TUB tells us…

10 “When archaeologists dig up the clay-tablet records of the later-day Sumerian descendants of the Nodites, they discover lists of Sumerian kings running back for several thousand years; and as these records go further back, the reigns of the individual kings lengthen from around twenty-five or thirty years up to one
hundred and fifty years and more. This lengthening of the reigns of these older kings signifies that some of the early Nodite rulers (immediate descendants of the Prince’s staff) did live longer than their later-day successors and also indicates an effort to stretch the dynasties back to Dalamatia.”

Now wait just a minute. Here’s John’s version: As you can see, in John’s version Jesus said: “Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.” But in actuality Jesus never said that. He said nothing about her leaving a life of sin. He said, “Go your way in peace.”

I don’t get your point. The revelators tweaked the earlier revelation . And as you admitted no epochal revelation that is communicated is infallible. Correct?

This is where John introduced his own prejudice to corrupt Jesus’ words.

That is fine and the revelators filtered out his prejudice from the revelation. They did not discount it, they tweaked the revelation.

John’s version is completely empty of value to me.

To you it is empty but not to the revelators who deemed it worthy enough to reproduce with revision.

How did Jesus’ gospel survive 2000+ years, you ask? Maybe you’ve heard of the Spirit of Truth?

” You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.

I posted the above quote for you to ponder. please pay close attention to the boldface, especially, since you take issue with human origin revelation.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 1:16 AM

Bonita wrote:

Sorry you have to expend so much energy. I spend a lot of time, but not much energy. It’s effortless, actually. I believe you think I’m rebuffing your explanations when what I’m doing is trying to show you where you are going off the rails when it comes to the UB. I think it’s a lack of understanding of the UB, not a lack of understanding of Kabbalah. And the reason you can’t get an “I will look into that,” from me is because I’ve already looked into it, you just refuse to accept that.

I do not think you looked into it. Your posture speaks otherwise, Bonita. Frankly speaking, I have seen you do this on every occasion with ideas put forth either foreign to you or at odds with your personal stance on TUB. This has nothing to do with lack of understanding on anyone’s part because at the end of the day, everyone brings subjectively arrived understanding. The issue I see with you is you have a difficult time accepting ideas that fly in the face of your “belief” are equally as relevant. Fanaticism breeds this kind of posturing. You see, Bonita, I never outright tell people that their understanding is “off the rails” because I never take an absolutist position. This is why the world is in turmoil today. Too many religious people deeming others’ beliefs wrong and theirs right.

I wouldn’t bother posting something if I didn’t know something about it.

The same here.

I’m under the impression that you think I don’t know what I’m talking about and that is sad, very sad, and I suspect a tiny bit sexist on some level, although I can’t prove that. It’s just a hunch.

I do not know what you know outside what you post.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 1:31 AM

Bonita wrote:

They are not admitting that their revelations distort the meaning of concepts at all.

And where did I say that? I am not sure why you make that statement. I said they are handicapped by the English language. It is the language that distorts the meaning of concepts.

They admit that there may not be a word in the English language they can use so they use a new word that may become distorted because of a lack of understanding of their motives for choosing the word.

That is not what it says. I will reproduce again…

“We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.”

They tell us that if there are English words that at least partially or even more or less distorts the meaning of the concepts, they are willing to defer to them instead of introducing totally new words. They say it right here: “… no terminology in the English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.”

They are NOT deliberating distorting anything.

They are resorting to the use of English words not fully adequate at capturing new concepts in favor of new words. They want to avoid at all cost inserting new words into revelation.

Deliberate distortion is something your friend Lucifer did.

“My friend Lucifer” ? Lol. You are showing your true colors now, Bonita.

Don’t mix up your friend’s madness with the intention of the celestials who wrote the UB.

LMAO! Okay Bonita. You played your hand. I know where I stand with you now. Thank you.

BB
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 2:20 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:  So then at least you accept the words of Christ as they are recorded in the New Testament as “revelation.” Yes?

No I do not accept the New Testament version of Christ’s words as revelation. Not at all. Read what I wrote again. The words in the New Testament are the words of men and the second, third and even fourth hand words of Christ.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  If Paul is unreliable why did the Revelator source his experience to expound on the function of Thought Adjusters?

To shed some light on Paul’s distortions. Paul wrote some real nonsense which the UB tries to straighten out.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Yes, his experience is auto-revelatory, but it is a part of epochal revelation as an example to further elaborate on the function of TAs.

So you admit then that Paul’s writings are not epochal revelations? Since most of the New Testament is Paul’s writing, then the New Testament is a testament to Paul’s auto-revelation and therefore not epochal.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Remember, Bonita, you are the one contesting the ideas I am putting forth, not the other way around. It is you that needs the open mind to entertain new ideas.

My mind is completely open to truth. If you spoke truth we wouldn’t be having this problem. And yes I am contesting your ideas, including the idea that I’m closed minded.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Well obviously the revelation came through a human subject. So, yes.

The revelation came through a human subject but was not written by a human subject. If you go to the list of authors of each Paper, none of them are humans. I don’t know if you noticed that or not.

Brooklyn_born wrote:No but they are “COMMUNICATED” through books, written words, on pages.

But the books are not the revelation. I don’t think they had a universal written language until quite recently in human history. All of those early revelations could not have been written down and COMMUNICATED as revelation. Have you read any books from the time of Adam and Eve? Just wondering.

Brooklyn_born wrote:Bonita, does Jesus live in your life time? Have you met him? How did you come to know about him? Was it not through “epochal revelation” ? Is this epochal revelation a human being?

Yes, Jesus does live in my lifetime and I have met him, haven’t you? I came to know Jesus through his Spirit of Truth because fellowship with the Spirit of Truth is fellowship with Michael, who is Jesus. And this is not epochal revelation; it is personal revelation, just like Paul had.

194:2.4 The proof, therefore, of your fellowship with the Spirit of Truth is not to be found in your consciousness of this spirit but rather in your experience of enhanced fellowship withMichael.

And yes, the Fourth Epochal Revelation was a human being, Joshua ben Joseph. It was his life that was a revelation of God the Father. It was not his words, but his life.

Brooklyn_born wrote:It is sarcastic replies like this that convince me you are close minded, Bonita. I ask myself why bother putting in the effort. Bonita, there is the scripture of Adam and Eve, there are sumerian epics, there is Gnostic scripture which speak of Melchizedek. These are the recordings of earlier epochal revelations.

Sarcasm should convince you of the ridiculousness of your proposals. Sarcasm is a way to illustrate the ridiculous. Surely you’ve seen some very sarcastic political cartoons designed to illustrate the ridiculous? Your idea that there were books from forty thousand years ago surviving as Sumerian epics proves to me that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Sumerian epics are myth, written by myth-making men. They are NOT revelatory. I can’t believe that you think something like the Epic of Gilgamesh is epochal revelation. How preposterous! That’s worth sarcasm in my estimation. And in regards to Melchizedek and gnosticism, did Melchizedek teach dualism? No! Where in gnosticism do you see the Melchizedek teaching of divine favor by faith alone? Most of gnosticism is myth written by myth-making men. I’m sorry, you’re point is lost on me.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Sumerian creation tales are the first epochal revelation.

WHAAAAAT???? That’s utter nonsense. The Sumerian creation tales are MYTH. The Sumerians may have been descendent from the Nodites but the Nodite’s language and writing did not survive. In fact, the Nodites had forgotten most of the First Epochal Revelation before the Sumerians even arrived on the scene. The Sumerians post-date Adam and Eve, the Second Epochal Revelation. Read again about the First Epochal Revelation:

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.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

That is fine and the revelators filtered out his prejudice from the revelation. They did not discount it, they tweaked the revelation.

How do you tweak a revelation? Truth doesn’t get tweaked as far as I know. The UB merely offered what Jesus actually said instead of what some gospel writer thought Jesus said. Huge difference. No tweaking is necessary when you’re telling the truth. The idea that a celestial would tweak truth is just weird.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

I posted the above quote for you to ponder. please pay close attention to the boldface, especially, since you take issue with human origin revelation.

Dude, the quote is talking about PERSONAL REVELATION, NOT EPOCHAL REVELATION. Paul’s or John’s personal revelation is NOT EPOCHAL, just like my personal revelation is not epochal. Surely you would not be happy if I went around spouting my personal revelation and demanding that you accept it as EPOCHAL! Just like I won’t accept your personal revelation as EPOCHAL.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 2:50 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

I do not think you looked into it. Your posture speaks otherwise, Bonita. Frankly speaking, I have seen you do this on every occasion with ideas put forth either foreign to you or at odds with your personal stance on TUB.

Well, I’m sure your “looking into it” is of a much higher quality than my “looking into it”. At least I’m sure that’s what you think. But I can assure you that when it comes to the UB I see no evidence that you’re an expert at all. And yes, I will take a stance every time the UB gets butchered. You can count on that like the sun rising and setting.

Brooklyn_born wrote: You see, Bonita, I never outright tell people that their understanding is “off the rails” because I never take an absolutist position. This is why the world is in turmoil today. Too many religious people deeming others’ beliefs wrong and theirs right.

Sorry, but I pledged eternal allegiance to God. That means when someone tries to claim that God the Father went into rebellion agains the Eternal Son, or that celestials rape one another or deliberately confuse people, I’m gonna have a fit! You can’t just put stuff like that out on a forum where new readers are just learning about the revelation and the truths contained within it. And since it’s just me and Brad who stand up against sophistries like that, I guess I’ll have to accept the role as “bad guy”. If you go off the rails, you can count on me coming around to try to get you back on. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

And let’s talk about beliefs here. Beliefs are generally wrong. Faith is not wrong. If you don’t have faith, then you’re full of doubts and suspicions which results in going off the rails and thinking things that are contrary to reality, like God the Father entering into rebellion like Lucifer and raping angels. And yeah, you can count on me being an “absolutist” when it comes to ridiculous ideas like that. I’ll always speak up when people have bad ideas. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

Personally, I don’t care what you believe. I do, however, care enormously about those who insist on exposing others to beliefs that are not supported by the UB, like raping angels and a rebelling God. Spreading confusion was what your friend Lucifer did and it’s not going to happen here as long as I can type. Sorry to be such a pain in your butt. All I can suggest is that you buy some stock in hemorrhoid cream because I have no intention of stopping the exposure of nonsense. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

And by the way, have you noticed that 99% of your posts are about the rebellion and demons? Why is that?
AnonymousInactive
Nov 17, 2014, 3:01 AM

Bonita wrote:

Sorry you have to expend so much energy. I spend a lot of time, but not much energy. It’s effortless, actually. I believe you think I’m rebuffing your explanations when what I’m doing is trying to show you where you are going off the rails when it comes to the UB. I think it’s a lack of understanding of the UB, not a lack of understanding of Kabbalah. And the reason you can’t get an “I will look into that,” from me is because I’ve already looked into it, you just refuse to accept that. Door slammed again. I wouldn’t bother posting something if I didn’t know something about it. I’m under the impression that you think I don’t know what I’m talking about and that is sad, very sad, and I suspect a tiny bit sexist on some level, although I can’t prove that. It’s just a hunch.

You know, Bonita, you are a bully, who thinks that they know everything there is to know, and also everything to know about the UB, but what you do not have and have not shown is any compassion, mercy, and brotherly love, which is what Jesus attempted to instill upon His fellow man. Why don’t you practice what Jesus preached, for once instead of getting your Ego in an uproar. I would say that there are fewer contributors to this forum just because they don’t want to tangle with possibly offending you. You talk about studying Kabbalah, but do you have any Hasidic friends who visit you or that you visit? If so then you would need to be Hasidic, and you would not really be able to contribute to this forum if you were. Do you have a full copy of any of the authorized copies of the Talmud, or Zohar, and this can not be found on the internet, and most of these scholars use book form and or scrolls. It took me over two years to collect my 25 volume copy of Rabbi Steinsaltz’s interpretation of the Talmud, where I have one of few complete sets, but then there is my copy of Zohar, 25 volumes, where I had to check with my spouses cousin, who is a Hasidic Jew, to make sure that I got the correct version authorized by most of the Hasidic congregations or Hasidim. So what, or with what, exactly have you been studying? Then to accuse others of being inferior to you, well that just doesn’t sound like what Jesus would do, and sound like you don’t practice what Jesus preached.

Bonita wrote:

Yeah, but it says the MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES is the indwelling God. That’s honing in on THE FUNDAMENTAL MYSTERY of all the infinitude of God’s MYSTERIES.

And by the way, when you stated above “Yeah, but it says the MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES is the indwelling God”, if you actually understood the UB, then you would know that the “MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES is”: the indwelt Adjuster and if you were one with Him you would understand that. But you know everything about the UB?
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 3:12 AM
Bonita, I am done having this discussion with you. You are VERY disrespectful.

BB
AnonymousInactive
Nov 17, 2014, 3:23 AM

Bonita wrote:

Sorry, but I pledged eternal allegiance to God. That means when someone tries to claim that God the Father went into rebellion agains the Eternal Son, or that celestials rape one another or deliberately confuse people, I’m gonna have a fit! You can’t just put stuff like that out on a forum where new readers are just learning about the revelation and the truths contained within it. And since it’s just me and Brad who stand up against sophistries like that, I guess I’ll have to accept the role as “bad guy”. If you go off the rails, you can count on me coming around to try to get you back on. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

Bonita wrote:

. . . It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

Bonita wrote:

Sorry to be such a pain in your butt. All I can suggest is that you buy some stock in hemorrhoid cream because I have no intention of stopping the exposure of nonsense. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.

I’m sorry Bonita but I did not sign onto this Forum to be serviced by you or anyone else. Or, to get lip service from you or Brad, for that mater, and I don’t like it, nor do I like your attitude, and for the most part I would report many of your comments on this topic as being discrimination against anyone who does not believe in the UB as you do. That is not your job, but oh yes, you did say that it was your job as appointed to the Church’s in the first forum, or two previous to this one, and when I asked you who authorized you to this position, you did not answer. It would seem that you still think that you have been given this position, but from whom?
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 3:53 AM

MidiChlorian wrote:  I would say that there are fewer contributors to this forum just because they don’t want to tangle with possibly offending you.

Dude, I went away for almost a year and there were no new contributors. I only come on this forum once or twice a week and in between those times I see very little if any posting except from Rick. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people don’t contribute here because of the ridiculous ideas being promoted and the relentless talk about Lucifer and the rebellion? Just a thought.

MidiChlorian wrote:  You talk about studying Kabbalah, but do you have any Hasidic friends who visit you or that you visit?

Yes I do. My in-laws. How about you? And don’t you know that there are many different forms of Kabbalah?

MidiChlorian wrote:If so then you would need to be Hasidic, and you would not really be able to contribute to this forum if you were.

My in laws would find that very amusing because it’s not at all true. What a bubbameister.

MidiChlorian wrote:  Then to accuse others of being inferior to you, well that just doesn’t sound like what Jesus would do, and sound like you don’t practice what Jesus preached.

Could you point out exactly where I accused someone of being inferior to me? I have never said such a thing. Others have been accusing me of being closed minded, which is inferior.   So, it sounds like it’s really the other way around and another bubbameister.

MidiChlorian wrote: Do you have a full copy of any of the authorized copies of the Talmud, or Zohar,

No. I do not have authorized copies. Do you think BB has authorized copies? And are you saying that without an authorized copy of a book there can be no knowledge of what is inside the book? Maybe we should start authorizing copies of the UB, so without an authorized copy you can know nothing about it. And what does this have to do with Kabbalah? Hasidism is a new form of Judaism from the 18th century. Kabbalism began long, long before then. And Merkabah mysticism even predates Kabbalah. So what’s you’re point? You sound so much like my father-in-law who told me that no Shiksa could ever know anything about Judaism. Before he died, he changed his mind about that and admitted that I knew more than him on the subject, and he was an intolerably stubborn man by everyone’s estimation – something he was proud of.

MidiChlorian wrote:  And by the way, when you stated above “Yeah, but it says the MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES is the indwelling God”, if you actually understood the UB, then you would know that the “MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES is”: the indwelt Adjuster and if you were one with Him you would understand that. But you know everything about the UB?

So what’s the difference between the indwelling God and the indwelt Adjuster? There is no difference and you’re not making any sense, evidence to me that you don’t actually understand this stuff. The Adjuster is God. Aren’t you the one who claimed that the Adjuster and the Mystery Monitor were two entirely different entities? Everyone knows that’s not right. And incidentally, if I was one with my Adjuster I’d be fused and residing elsewhere.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 4:27 AM

MidiChlorian wrote:  I’m sorry Bonita but I did not sign onto this Forum to be serviced by you or anyone else.

It’s not a problem Midi. My services are free. If you say something that’s not in the UB, like the references hormone being associated with the Spirit of Counsel, I’m going to call you on it, free of charge.

MidiChlorian wrote:  That is not your job, but oh yes, you did say that it was your job as appointed to the Church’s in the first forum,

Again, not making sense Midi. I claimed to be appointed to the Church’s? What is that? How can I make a claim to be part of something that I can’t make any sense of? Maybe what you wrote is a typo?

MidiChlorian wrote:  It would seem that you still think that you have been given this position, but from whom?

Hey, I’m not the one claiming to have special secret knowledge, now am I. Who gave you that special secret knowledge of the disappearing rendition of Revelations?

MidiChlorian wrote:  I don’t like it, nor do I like your attitude

The feeling is more than mutual.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 4:32 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

Bonita, I am done having this discussion with you. You are VERY disrespectful.

Yes I am disrespectful of the idea of God rebelling against the Eternal Son and Lucifer getting spiritual messages from the temple of light telling him how to rebel like the Father rebelled. Those ideas are not worthy of respect by anyone. I’m so glad you will not be talking about that nonsense anymore. But if you do, I will show my disrespect of such blasphemy against a loving God. It’s a service I offer, free of charge.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 4:43 AM

Bonita wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

Bonita, I am done having this discussion with you. You are VERY disrespectful.

Yes I am disrespectful of the idea of God rebelling against the Eternal Son and Lucifer getting spiritual messages from the temple of light telling him how to rebel like the Father rebelled. Those ideas are not worthy of respect by anyone. I’m so glad you will not be talking about that nonsense anymore. But if you do, I will show my disrespect of such blasphemy against a loving God. It’s a service I offer, free of charge.

You got it wrong, Bonita. I did not say I won’t be talking about that “nonsense.” I said I won’t have this discussion WITH YOU. Understood? I will continue to post and abide by TOS. I will ignore you if you think you are going to disrespect me on my threads. And if you harass and stalk me I will lodge a complaint against you with the board’s administration. This attitude you are taking Bonita is not good. Not good at all.

BB
AnonymousInactive
Nov 17, 2014, 2:37 PM
You know B.B., that this thread has become a true type assimilation of ‘Church history as “War in Heaven”?’ Where this thread has become an example of how Islamic Clerics turned moderate Islam into various terroristic sects, where one or few individuals who project a complex viewpoint into a simplified distortion of what was a religious viewpoint into closed minded laws as proclaimed by men, instead of God, where by self proclaimed authority, becomes Deified in the minds of men.

The word “paradise” is listed in the UB over 2000 times and my recent search of this word in the KJV is only presented three times, of which they are located in the NT. Where one might think that the UB uses this word, somehow to collect Islamic types to transpose their thoughts from one cult to another. Although the attitude projected in this thread seem to parallel this Islamic type of specific fanaticism, where complex context is turned into a simplified distorted version of proclaiming of God’s word as transposed by the editing of and through human language, where it is evident that the human mind is susceptible to fallacy, and that through this thread, you may have proved an assimilation of what the “War in Heaven” would actually have been like, based on this experience.

Fascinating, to be sure, but seems definitive within the context written. Thanks for your presentation.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 3:37 PM
Indeed, Midi, Indeed! Thanks for participating on this thread, and I look forward to future correspondences and exchanging of ideas.

MidiChlorian wrote:

You know B.B., that this thread has become a true type assimilation of ‘Church history as “War in Heaven”?’ Where this thread has become an example of how Islamic Clerics turned moderate Islam into various terroristic sects, where one or few individuals who project a complex viewpoint into a simplified distortion of what was a religious viewpoint into closed minded laws as proclaimed by men, instead of God, where by self proclaimed authority, becomes Deified in the minds of men. The word “paradise” is listed in the UB over 2000 times and my recent search of this word in the KJV is only presented three times, of which they are located in the NT. Where one might think that the UB uses this word, somehow to collect Islamic types to transpose their thoughts from one cult to another. Although the attitude projected in this thread seem to parallel this Islamic type of specific fanaticism, where complex context is turned into a simplified distorted version of proclaiming of God’s word as transposed by the editing of and through human language, where it is evident that the human mind is susceptible to fallacy, and that through this thread, you may have proved an assimilation of what the “War in Heaven” would actually have been like, based on this experience. Fascinating, to be sure, but seems definitive within the context written. Thanks for your presentation.

BB
BradlyParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 5:15 PM
Greetings All!!

Well Midi….another round of insults I see….I am accused of “lip service”, or by definition – disingenuous, lacking sincerity, and hypocracy…..and now, apparently, I’m a muslim terrorist as well. And all because I disagree with the answers to questions asked and the conclusions of fellow students. I think I will let the reiteration of your accusation stand on its own merits as my only response. You are entitled to your opinion(s).

I would suggest that when someone posts a question as the title to a topic and then requests the opinions of others, that it is then quite disingenuous to attack those opinions of those who offer opinions which are contrary to some preconception or foregone conclusion of the topic’s author….or supporters.

While it is not important to me (or any others I know of) that students of the UB believe or come to believe that it is indeed what it claims to be, it should not be surprising to any student that those students who do so believe the text is the 5th Epochal Revelation (the first such in written form it claims) have a literal approach to that which claims to eliminate error and reduce confusion and thereby, steadily refute any notion presented by any party that the text is an allegorical, metaphorical, code imbedded, hidden meaning filled, or cypher to be interpreted by anyone into any meaning that the authors do not specify and articulate. Now, any student may so believe that if they wish….but this site is by and for UB students to study the text as presented….and not as re-invented by code breakers. The claim of distortion is correct enough, but it is not distortion by simplification at play here but, rather, distortion by fantastical complication of metaphorical interpretation by those who refuse to accept the literal definitions of the words chosen by the authors.

Bradly

"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."
AnonymousInactive
Nov 17, 2014, 5:59 PM

Bradly wrote:

Well Midi….another round of insults I see….I am accused of “lip service”, or by definition – disingenuous, lacking sincerity, and hypocracy…..and now, apparently, I’m a muslim terrorist as well. And all because I disagree with the answers to questions asked and the conclusions of fellow students. I think I will let the reiteration of your accusation stand on its own merits as my only response. You are entitled to your opinion(s).

I would suggest that when someone posts a question as the title to a topic and then requests the opinions of others, that it is then quite disingenuous to attack those opinions or those who offer opinions which are contrary to some preconception or foregone conclusion of the topic’s author….or supporters.

While it is not important to me (or any others I know of) that students of the UB believe or come to believe that it is indeed what it claims to be, it should not be surprising to any student that those students who do so believe the text is the 5th Epochal Revelation (the first such in written form it claims) have a literal approach to that which claims to eliminate error and reduce confusion and thereby, steadily refute any notion presented by any party that the text is an allegorical, metaphorical, code imbedded, hidden meaning filled, or cypher to be interpreted by anyone into any meaning that the authors do not specify and articulate. Now, any student may so believe that if they wish….but this site is by and for UB students to study the text as presented….and not as re-invented by code breakers. The claim of distortion is correct enough, but it is not distortion by simplification at play here but, rather, distortion by fantastical complication of metaphorical interpretation by those who refuse to accept the literal definitions of the words chosen by the authors.

I would expect nothing different from you in that it seems that you also interpret post to your own liking, and if by my inclusion of yourself, being in league with Bonita, you can point your finger at her in that she is the one who included your name into the conversation, where as by your reply above, it was not mistaken with her inclusion thereof. As to your implication of my inferred accusation of terrorism, is not withstanding to your comprehension of specific text and your reading ability to discern context, which is synonymous to some of the content of the posts on this thread. So, by your assuming of what I said or meant to say in my statement to B.B., is par for the coarse and borders on the line of your usual insults, embedded within your word-smithing, attempts to hide your true felling’s. Not to mention that you are the one who has often referred to dissemination of the UB text as an open subject. So, if you think that the text says what it says and don’t say what it don’t say, I would suggest that those who don’t find a topic as interesting and viable for discussion to not contribute. But if you also think that it is your mission in life to provide a free service, and to act as an authority or administrator to this forum, then so be it. So, if you have a problem with me or anyone else who wishes to have an open discussion regarding the UB or its context, at least have the decency to speck plainly and at least pose a question if you actually have no clue as to what I have put in print. Your misguided assumption would seem to be an admission as to that which Bonita has by including your name with hers, which would indicate that the two of you have been united for some time now, but on what, is still uncertain? Thanks for your insightful inclusion, it proves my point made earlier.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 17, 2014, 6:24 PM

Bradly wrote:

I would suggest that when someone posts a question as the title to a topic and then requests the opinions of others, that it is then quite disingenuous to attack those opinions of those who offer opinions which are contrary to some preconception or foregone conclusion of the topic’s author….or supporters.

Who was attacked, Bradly? By my estimation, Bonita was the one who went on the personal attack. Calling me “Friend of Lucifer” “or “Blasphemous” is VERY disrespectful. It is one thing to disagree on ideas, but it is another to take the discussion to a personal level. She is flat out wrong and very disrespectful. I think you should re-read the posts. Have not you and I been cordial throughout the exchanges even though we vehemently disagree with each other’s position on this and other topics? Why is it I find myself in a contentious atmosphere only with Bonita? I do not have this problem with any other participant.

While it is not important to me (or any others I know of) that students of the UB believe or come to believe that it is indeed what it claims to be, it should not be surprising to any student that those students who do so believe the text is the 5th Epochal Revelation (the first such in written form it claims) have a literal approach

Well, the reality is not all students think TUB is exclusive to a literal reading.

to that which claims to eliminate error and reduce confusion and thereby, steadily refute any notion presented by any party that the text is an allegorical, metaphorical, code imbedded, hidden meaning filled, or cypher to be interpreted by anyone into any meaning that the authors do not specify and articulate.

And I have shown you with reference that revelation can also be approached ‘figuratively’ , ‘personally,’ and ‘spiritually’, besides literally.

Now, any student may so believe that if they wish….but this site is by and for UB students to study the text as presented….and not as re-invented by code breakers.

Bradly, here is what the welcome statement says, in part:

“… We will insure that it is a safe and courteous environment for you to feel comfortable expressing your views…” The welcome page also links to the TOS and a statement is made about channeling. And here are two items from TOS:

1. Be kind, fair, respectful and courteous at all times

2. Personal attacks…. which is abusive… likely to offend.

Bradly, it says that this forum welcomes participants to a courteous environment …. feel comfortable expressing YOUR VIEWS. I did exactly that. I also make sure not to raise any discussion on channeling as we are instructed by TOS. Otherwise I am within the right to express by view about any TUB topic. But being called “friend of Lucifer” is not a courteous environment, would you not agree?

The claim of distortion is correct enough, but it is not distortion by simplification at play here but, rather, distortion by fantastical complication of metaphorical interpretation by those who refuse to accept the literal definitions of the words chosen by the authors.

Bradly, I do not reject literal readings of TUB. However, I do think there TUB is multi-layered. My position is TUB can be approached literally, figuratively, spiritually and personally.

BB

Reply on the current forum