'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'

[Will Due]

54 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hey Will I have some serious questions about theThe Urantia Papers.

1. Who wrote them?

 

The midwayers (in my opinion).

"In the contacts made with the mortal beings of the material worlds, the midway creatures are always employed. 

But the words they wrote were in most cases, not authored by them. They were merely being employed to translate the words of others. Here's a link that lists the authors of the individual papers:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/titles-papers

 

 

54 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

2. When was the book written.?

Peace

 

The papers were handwritten in 1934-35. Later transcribed and published as the Urantia Book in 1955.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Will Due

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The midwayers (in my opinion).

"In the contacts made with the mortal beings of the material worlds, the midway creatures are always employed. 

But the words they wrote were in most cases, not authored by them. They were merely being employed to translate the words of others. Here's a link that lists the authors of the individual papers:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/titles-papers

 

 

 

The papers were handwritten in 1934-35. Later transcribed and published as the Urantia Book in 1955.

 

 

Thanks Will, take care!

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, Will Due said:

"Late on the evening of the day of Pentecost, when, largely through the energetic and inspiring preaching of Peter, two thousand souls were added to the kingdom, Andrew said to his brother: “I could not do that, but I am glad I have a brother who could.” To which Peter replied: “And but for your bringing me to the Master and by your steadfastness keeping me with him, I should not have been here to do this.”

OK, we're talking about the same Andrew, who according to the canonical gospels was the brother of Simon Peter (Mark 1:16) who introduced Simon Peter to the teachings of Jesus (John 1:40-42).

So, before we get too far into the superhuman stuff (like who was Andrew's "midwayer" and what a midwayer does for Andrew and for us), there are those "notes." Are those what they sound like, writings made by a human being to record recent facts?

If so, then are all the sources used by the UB for Jesus's earthly career "notes" in that sense? As suggested by

Quote

This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

or is the UB not "a subseuqent Gospel narrative," and that's where the "superhuman" part comes in? Or does that superhuman part only apply to supernatural matters?

Example. Back to the empty tomb. Are "notes" used for things like the women went to the tomb, didn't find Jesus's body there, went to get help, then one or two disciples went to the tomb ... while "superhuiman" applies only to things like what happened during the actual resurrection, how the corpse came no longer to exist... things that no ordinary human being witnessed while they were happening?

Alternative: There is no extant "Gospel of Andrew" that focuses on Jesus's career (there is an Acts of Andrew, but it focuses on his own career as a post-Pentecostal missionary, and it is not remotely credibly historical in its content). Is the superhuman part that somebody has preserved a copy of Andrew's notes in some library in outer space somewhere?

Or both? Neither?

-

Two matters arising:

Note on Q: It's a hypothetical written document. There is no extant copy of it, nor surviving ancient reference to it. The idea arose in modern times in hopes of explaining the close agreement between Matthew and Luke about the Greek translation of many oral teachings of Jesus (presumably originally spoken in Aramaic).

The main alternative hypothesis is that Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel and copied the sayings from that, just as Luke clearly copied other material from Mark's Gospel. (Runner-up alternative is that this source was a collection of already existing wisdom sayings in Greek by whatever Jewish author(s) that were re-attributed to Jesus by Matthew and Luke).

If the "notes of Andrew" include both sayings and doings of Jesus, then that isn't Q, which is imagined to be almost entirely the sayings of Jesus. Also Q has to have been written in the Greek language to serve its hypothetical function. The idea of a rural fisherman of the time translating his native language into polished Greek is a stretch. Even basic literacy in any language would have been rare for such a person.

Note on Mark: The UB describes Mark as "the most simple record of Jesus’ life." That would have been a mid-twentieth century view. Since then, scholars have come to appreciate that Mark is fabulously complex and dense in its construction, when viewed as a work of literature. There is also a near-consensus nowadays that Mark is a "bios," an ancient literary form that is about a person of the past but not intended to be an accurate account of their life (= not a "record"), but rather a morally uplifting reading or listening experience.

It is remarkable that the UB describes Mark as would have been typical among scholars at the time of its own first publication, rather than offering a more sophisticated perspective like those which have become prevalent since then. I believe some of the other posters have made similar observations about the scientific content of the UB.

Food for thought, eh?

 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

OK, we're talking about the same Andrew, who according to the canonical gospels was the brother of Simon Peter (Mark 1:16) who introduced Simon Peter to the teachings of Jesus (John 1:40-42).

So, before we get too far into the superhuman stuff (like who was Andrew's "midwayer" and what a midwayer does for Andrew and for us), there are those "notes." Are those what they sound like, writings made by a human being to record recent facts?

If so, then are all the sources used by the UB for Jesus's earthly career "notes" in that sense? As suggested by

or is the UB not "a subseuqent Gospel narrative," and that's where the "superhuman" part comes in? Or does that superhuman part only apply to supernatural matters?

Example. Back to the empty tomb. Are "notes" used for things like the women went to the tomb, didn't find Jesus's body there, went to get help, then one or two disciples went to the tomb ... while "superhuiman" applies only to things like what happened during the actual resurrection, how the corpse came no longer to exist... things that no ordinary human being witnessed while they were happening?

Alternative: There is no extant "Gospel of Andrew" that focuses on Jesus's career (there is an Acts of Andrew, but it focuses on his own career as a post-Pentecostal missionary, and it is not remotely credibly historical in its content). Is the superhuman part that somebody has preserved a copy of Andrew's notes in some library in outer space somewhere?

Or both? Neither?

-

Two matters arising:

Note on Q: It's a hypothetical written document. There is no extant copy of it, nor surviving ancient reference to it. The idea arose in modern times in hopes of explaining the close agreement between Matthew and Luke about the Greek translation of many oral teachings of Jesus (presumably originally spoken in Aramaic).

The main alternative hypothesis is that Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel and copied the sayings from that, just as Luke clearly copied other material from Mark's Gospel. (Runner-up alternative is that this source was a collection of already existing wisdom sayings in Greek by whatever Jewish author(s) that were re-attributed to Jesus by Matthew and Luke).

If the "notes of Andrew" include both sayings and doings of Jesus, then that isn't Q, which is imagined to be almost entirely the sayings of Jesus. Also Q has to have been written in the Greek language to serve its hypothetical function. The idea of a rural fisherman of the time translating his native language into polished Greek is a stretch. Even basic literacy in any language would have been rare for such a person.

Note on Mark: The UB describes Mark as "the most simple record of Jesus’ life." That would have been a mid-twentieth century view. Since then, scholars have come to appreciate that Mark is fabulously complex and dense in its construction, when viewed as a work of literature. There is also a near-consensus nowadays that Mark is a "bios," an ancient literary form that is about a person of the past but not intended to be an accurate account of their life (= not a "record"), but rather a morally uplifting reading or listening experience.

It is remarkable that the UB describes Mark as would have been typical among scholars at the time of its own first publication, rather than offering a more sophisticated perspective like those which have become prevalent since then. I believe some of the other posters have made similar observations about the scientific content of the UB.

Food for thought, eh?

 

Thank you, I just knew you would make sense of this. This is also an excellent step by step on how to use the facts to arrive at the conclusion. Over the years, I have learned much just with your example. 

[+Hammerclaw]

The search algorithms of late seem to only take you to positive posts and sources about the Urantia book. With a little digging, however, you can find substantive critiques of Urantia scientific, cosmological and scientific absurdities.

Problems with the Cosmology and Astronomy of The Urantia Book – Ruminations

Edited December 4, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Will Due]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

OK, we're talking about the same Andrew, who according to the canonical gospels was the brother of Simon Peter (Mark 1:16) who introduced Simon Peter to the teachings of Jesus (John 1:40-42).

So, before we get too far into the superhuman stuff (like who was Andrew's "midwayer" and what a midwayer does for Andrew and for us), there are those "notes." Are those what they sound like, writings made by a human being to record recent facts?

If so, then are all the sources used by the UB for Jesus's earthly career "notes" in that sense? As suggested by

or is the UB not "a subseuqent Gospel narrative," and that's where the "superhuman" part comes in? Or does that superhuman part only apply to supernatural matters?

Example. Back to the empty tomb. Are "notes" used for things like the women went to the tomb, didn't find Jesus's body there, went to get help, then one or two disciples went to the tomb ... while "superhuiman" applies only to things like what happened during the actual resurrection, how the corpse came no longer to exist... things that no ordinary human being witnessed while they were happening?

Alternative: There is no extant "Gospel of Andrew" that focuses on Jesus's career (there is an Acts of Andrew, but it focuses on his own career as a post-Pentecostal missionary, and it is not remotely credibly historical in its content). Is the superhuman part that somebody has preserved a copy of Andrew's notes in some library in outer space somewhere?

Or both? Neither?

-

Two matters arising:

Note on Q: It's a hypothetical written document. There is no extant copy of it, nor surviving ancient reference to it. The idea arose in modern times in hopes of explaining the close agreement between Matthew and Luke about the Greek translation of many oral teachings of Jesus (presumably originally spoken in Aramaic).

The main alternative hypothesis is that Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel and copied the sayings from that, just as Luke clearly copied other material from Mark's Gospel. (Runner-up alternative is that this source was a collection of already existing wisdom sayings in Greek by whatever Jewish author(s) that were re-attributed to Jesus by Matthew and Luke).

If the "notes of Andrew" include both sayings and doings of Jesus, then that isn't Q, which is imagined to be almost entirely the sayings of Jesus. Also Q has to have been written in the Greek language to serve its hypothetical function. The idea of a rural fisherman of the time translating his native language into polished Greek is a stretch. Even basic literacy in any language would have been rare for such a person.

Note on Mark: The UB describes Mark as "the most simple record of Jesus’ life." That would have been a mid-twentieth century view. Since then, scholars have come to appreciate that Mark is fabulously complex and dense in its construction, when viewed as a work of literature. There is also a near-consensus nowadays that Mark is a "bios," an ancient literary form that is about a person of the past but not intended to be an accurate account of their life (= not a "record"), but rather a morally uplifting reading or listening experience.

It is remarkable that the UB describes Mark as would have been typical among scholars at the time of its own first publication, rather than offering a more sophisticated perspective like those which have become prevalent since then. I believe some of the other posters have made similar observations about the scientific content of the UB.

Food for thought, eh?

 

 

An interesting perspective. Simply put in response to your several questions, when reading the papers, one is only left to draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

An interesting perspective. Simply put in response to your several questions, when reading the papers, one is only left to draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Mr Walker]

On 12/3/2021 at 1:05 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You commented none the less about why others should watch a video that you had no interest in, a comment is a comment period.

Huh, never mind.

I have asked you direct questions about your alien that it would have to answer and it doesn't and you fluff over it. Not once have you been able to show your stories are based on verifiable evidence so really you talk about it because you can doesn't mean that anyone can find validity in those stories.

Yes You gave an outstanding example of your interpretations of Buddhism just this last week and were confronted about what you didn't know so your impressions about the UB are not really informed enough to argue it.

Well if your not interested then why are you arguing about people asking for a brief of what the video covers, I'm not interested in watching a video that does not address the questions that I asked.

It does when the claim is that the UB can be scientifically proven valid.

I wasn't asking you about the UB in this thread because you are not an authority on it. There are 3 people that have said to ask them questions, I believe Luis said bring it on and I did, Halbert also got involved and said he would have to look again at his research and would get back about the questions.

 

This is the post where I made my questions quite clear.

It is said that Adam and Eve along with all the civilized lived on a peninsula on the East coast of the Mediterranean that sank and that there were thousands of miles of roads and paths. Livestock was not raised on the peninsula and was brought in by other human groups considered inferior humans that were eventually wiped out. Those humans were of colours that do not exist nor have they at any time in known history and there is absolutely no evidence that they did exist. There is no evidence of that landmass nor of the roads and paths that connected them to any region nor is there evidence of animal domestication or sites that show there were agricultural communities at that time in history in that region and it has been a well studied area by the scientific community.

So if you have an answer as to why we don't have any evidence for 

a peninsula

domestic livestock

grain cultivation

unknown human of colours that no longer exist

roads and pathways

then I would like to see you explain it within a scientific context with published research that supports your position that the events in in question about  the UB are possible.

As you can see the questions were not directed to you as you do not have the knowledge base to discuss them and did pose them to the guy that said bring it on.

to your questions

The story of adam and eve and indeed of creation is a creation  myth.

Ive explained how  (IMO) it is the writer's attempt to explain the changing needs of humans, from  spiritual to material as the y change from hunting and gathering to agrarian, and require more science and basic technologies IE the y give up reliance on gods in return for  reliance on knowledge.   There are many historical examples which might have produced a racial memory of a great flood  The Mediterranean is unlikely but i believe the Black sea did suffer something similar. There is /are evidences for this inundation and the displacement of the peole who lived their 

While its further away, Dogger land , now the Dogger Banks, was once settled and farmed until it was inundated  as the land bridge to Englamd went under the sea

Human colouring is climate dependent 

I think it unlikely that strange coloured humans lived on earth However we now know there are about 4 forms of human in our DNA  possibly more 

A wildly theoretical possibility, is that the strange coloured   people were aliens who left earth or an earth species taken off planet .

My connection to the cosmic consciousness hasn't shown me such a race on earth, but here are many different coloured species out among the stars 

What i said about the UB science was that while many of the claims have bennprovenwrong or not proven right there are a few whichgot the sceince right before it became scientifiknowldge 

Coincidence ? possibly 

My opinion on the bible and the UB are the same 

The y are books of theology /belief/philosophy etc not science

Follow their moral codes by all means eg dont steal, be kind to others,   but adapt them somewhat    to modern values eg don't keep slaves, don't  beat your wives or require them to keep silent in church  but don't look to  those books  for scientific truth  They don't represent real history or more science than the writers already possessed   

"god" is not going to give me the secret of anti gravity but   it has given me much more important gifts.

In the bible these are called gifts of the sprit but they  are actually revealed truths of human psychology ie how to live a happy fulfilled life without fear anger hate greed envy.  How to be loved and respected by others and, most important, how to love and respect yourself.   Why spiritual well being is at least as important as physical well being and sometimes more so.

THOSE are the great secrets of all good religious books and beliefs 

A belief should empower, fulfil, and complete you.

If it doesn't, then find another one.  

ps my argument was the that  pattern of questioning of will appeared non genuine, hostile and designed to entrap

That's just appearance and i cant know posters' minds although past history is informative 

There is NO reason why will or any other must give his opinion on a topic before anyone else gives theirs.  

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+joc]

On 12/2/2021 at 4:39 PM, jmccr8 said:

Will do said:  I forgot to mention that in connection with 'Atlantis' this same information in the papers also explains what the following from the Bible is all about:

 "The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and when these sons of the gods went in to the daughters of men and they bore to them, their children were the 'mighty men of old,' the 'men of renown.

How do the authors of Urantia (whom we have no idea about) know what the Nephilim were on earth...?

Actually this is the question...if we do not know who the authors of Urantia were...then how can we know anything?

Edited December 5, 2021 by joc

[Mr Walker]

On 12/3/2021 at 9:28 PM, eight bits said:

Just to pause a moment, and clarify my understanding of the thread's topic. Although the on-topic discussion so far has emphasized scientific matters, I don't see anything in the OP which restricts the discussion of the UB to its cosmology. On the contrary, I find a link to a Quora page where Luis quotes the UB to the following effect:

Will, another of our UB experts, identified its teachings about Jesus as one of the three major components of the UB. Those sections about Jesus are quite extensive, and I thank Will for pointing them out to me years ago. That is the portion of the UB which I've read, based on Will's guidance and advice.

I will happily accept instruction if I have misunderstood, but to me, discussion of what the UB says about a historical Jesus and how that compares with other extant sources and related scholarship is on-topic here. Which works out well for people like me who don't know the shape of the Universe.

In that spirit, then, I'd like to comment on a small historical claim about Jesus and his followers as found in both UB and other sources, the "Empty Tomb" story. @Mr Walker has already mentioned that incident in an earlier post:

"He" is Dr Richard Carrier, a well-known Jesus mythicist. I am unsure which work of his Mr W finds inconsistent, however that some people as long ago as the first century opined that Jesus's body was stolen is attested by Matthew, a primary source for what people said back then. It is precisely the sort of thing an ancient historian might discuss, and there is little doubt that Dr Carrier would agree with Bart Ehrman that, if such an event occurred, then it is more likely that the tomb was found empty for natural reasons than for supernatural ones.

That Dr Carrier holds this view about the hypothetical situation doesn't contraidct his other view that the hypothesis is false.

The Urantia Book covers the time between the crucifixion and Jesus's reappearances in two papers, #188 (The time of the tomb) and #189 (The resurrection, which paper includes the discovery of the empty tomb). These can be found online here:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-188-time-tomb

(and then follow the link near the bottom of the page to #189)

The papers freely mix historical content in the usual sense (who said and did what, when and where) with a great deal of Urantia-specific explanation of how Jesus came back to life in a different form than before. By and large, the historical material is a familiar genre: a "harmony" of the gospels. That is, reading along, the reader can see that one bit comes from Matthew, then later, another bit comes from John, and so on.

Like all harmonies, the result is a new narrative, not found in any of the contributing sources but echoing all of them. There are also some scenes along the way whose source I do not recognize. Well, so, too, in Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, two other modern gospel harmonies.

The empty tomb is especially hard work for the harmonist (both JCS and G simply omit it), since the four canonical gospels tell such radically different versions of it. Mark (16:1-8) is fairly naturalistic. Matthew (28:1-10) is a supernatural extravaganza with an angel descending from heaven to invite the women and soldiers to inspect the tomb. Luke (24:1-12; referred to again at 24:22-24) is similar to Mark, but now Peter comes to verify what the women tell him. And then there's John (20:1-17), with a little bit of everything: angels, Peter and the Beloved Disciple both checking what the women say, and Mary Magdalene not recognizing Jesus at first, because of his new form.

Now, pinch yourself. This is the simplest imaginable historical fact. Some women visit a tomb, find that the corpse which interests them isn't there, meet somebody or somebodies in or around the tomb, and the women do or do not receive assistance from other friends of the deceased. And now, 1900 years later, comes the Urantia Book with yet a fifth version of the story.

The story has visibly improved and expanded in the retelling, which is suspicious for a simple incident that supposedly really happened. So, my UB expert friends:

Is there somewhere in the UB that explains how its authors know in modern times what the ancient authors plainly did not: what happened that morning in Jerusalem? (And yes, Mr W, my question is posed based on the premise that something happened, which is not a claim that anything in particular really did happem.)

Fair points, but I disagree

If Christ is a non real construction  based on earlier myths, and never existed as a real person then he never died, was never buried and couldn't have risen from the dead.

Thus the two ideas are contradictory, or a t the very least, having a bet each way

Which is it ? Th t christ never existed and Christianity is a  philosophical/theological construct based on earlier myths, OR that Christ was real human preacher/ teacher who was crucified and buried. and whose body was stolen, allowing the idea that he arose from the dead to become popular  and contribute to the power of Christianity and its appeal 

Generally academics would argue that the mythology of Christ s just that,  but that this his historical  existence is indisputable.

   Christ mythers don't just deny the divinity of Christ (which is a very logical and arguable  denial)  but deny his very existence as a real person,  which is not.

  I could tell you the (or a t least one possible) answer to the last question but am not sure if it  is off topic 

The UB, like parts of the bible, is premised on " divine " contact, communication, and revelation.

Such contacts are always interesting, but often unprovable. That is why some try to prove them via the content of the message.

  They also depend on the  mind and knowledge of the receiver, and  what he/she can take/understand,  from contact with a "god" 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:36 AM, eight bits said:

OK, you're gonna have to help me here. What I thought I was being told by the above is that the UB Jesus story is some kind of Gospel according to Andrew (= brother of Peter, and according to John a one-time disciple of John the Baptist who interested his brother in Jesus).

Is that anything like what the above means?

But then

So I did, and that's a long drink of water, and now I get the feeling that the UB's Jesus narrative is a selection from all kinds of written materials, including but not limited to the canonical gospels. For example, the last sentence of the third and final paragraph:

OK, so back to the empty tomb, the earliest authors we know of don't know what happened; what better sources do the Urantia book authors have? Maybe a single concrete example of such a superior source would be a good place to start, and if that thing isn't explained all in one place in the UB, then maybe an explanation in your own words would be better than hopping around the book.

I appreciate that you're trying, and in turn I'm trying to make it as simple as possible: focusing on one specific incident, and now seeking just one specific superior source that we can discuss and evaluate, and a concise self-contained explanantion of that source, either the book's or even better, your own.

The simplest argument for a non believer is that the work is based on the mind of a well read and biblically literate individual with a vivid imagination who constructed the story for any one of many possible reasons 

The second  possibility for a skeptic  is that it was  the result of a detailed and  lengthy lucid dream, or a series of these.

  The dreamer, again,  must have had a detailed biblical knowledge and a good standard of literacy  (but apparently  not an expert scientific background)  He /she may or may not have seen the dreams as divine revelation/contact,  but others certainly did  

In the fifties some of the material was rewritten to add new/more up t o date  scientific understandings 

Thats my understanding of the historical "claimed"  origin of the papers 

I think the  claimed  source is direct revelation from  the mind of god 

I keep an open mind on that 

This happens, but an outsider can never be sure of the accuracy or probity of such a claim.

A skeptic would say it is simply impossible, yet it is not. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

to your questions

Hi Walker

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The story of adam and eve and indeed of creation is a creation  myth.

Ive explained how  (IMO) it is the writer's attempt to explain the changing needs of humans, from  spiritual to material as the y change from hunting and gathering to agrarian, and require more science and basic technologies IE the y give up reliance on gods in return for  reliance on knowledge.   There are many historical examples which might have produced a racial memory of a great flood  The Mediterranean is unlikely but i believe the Black sea did suffer something similar. There is /are evidences for this inundation and the displacement of the peole who lived their 

While its further away, Dogger land , now the Dogger Banks, was once settled and farmed until it was inundated  as the land bridge to Englamd went under the sea

Wonderful as far as your non-informed thanks for not knowing what your talking about goes.

 

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Human colouring is climate dependent 

And what climate produces orange, blue or purple people seeing as how we don't still see them today, or will we clone them to look like that.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I think it unlikely that strange coloured humans lived on earth However we now know there are about 4 forms of human in our DNA  possibly more 

A wildly theoretical possibility, is that the strange coloured   people were aliens who left earth or an earth species taken off planet .

My connection to the cosmic consciousness hasn't shown me such a race on earth, but here are many different coloured species out among the stars 

ugh huh, earth calling Walker speculation and fiction doesn't mean much in the real world

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A wildly theoretical possibility, is that the strange coloured   people were aliens who left earth or an earth species taken off planet .

The UB says they were inferior and destroyed, your alien hasn't said anything about refugees on other planets that originated on earth that do not look like one of the others.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My opinion on the bible and the UB are the same 

Yes you can have an opinion but really you don't believe in either one of them so not likely I will think you are an authority on anything outside of your opinion

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Follow their moral codes by all means eg dont steal, be kind to others, 

Our moral codes are not alien or religious we are an evolved herd animal that exists depending on the skills of each other been like that for like ever man

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

"god" is not going to give me the secret of anti gravity but   it has given me much more important gifts.

Really you alien hasn't told you squat you just tell us your perception of what your construct that you created told you so why not just own up to your own illusions an say you say so?

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

In the bible these are called gifts of the sprit but they  are actually revealed truths of human psychology ie how to live a happy fulfilled life without fear anger hate greed envy.  How to be loved and respected by others and, most important, how to love and respect yourself.   Why spiritual well being is at least as important as physical well being and sometimes more so.

THOSE are the great secrets of all good religious books and beliefs 

A belief should empower, fulfil, and complete you.

If it doesn't, then find another one.  

Even though I have let myself down at times it was me that picked me up and sorted it out, I believe in me even if I don't trust myself 100% of the time because as far as I know I am real to me and your alien or it's kind have never been there during any of that.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps my argument was the that  pattern of questioning of will appeared non genuine, hostile and designed to entrap

That's just appearance and i cant know posters' minds although past history is informative 

There is NO reason why will or any other must give his opinion on a topic before anyone else gives theirs.  

My questions were based on what was presented and not hostile, That is your bias period.

I didn't ask Will specifically as it was Luis that said bring it on and was talking to him. Halbert stepped up and am waiting to hear back and he seemed to think they were valid questions so get of your horse before you fall off.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, joc said:

How do the authors of Urantia (whom we have no idea about) know what the Nephilim were on earth...?

Actually this is the question...if we do not know who the authors of Urantia were...then how can we know anything?

Hi Joc

When I was much younger and tried LSD and wrote some ramblings, after that I decided not to write my thoughts down and laugh them off for the abstraction that they were,. That said I don't write down much since then other than a girls phone number

Edited December 5, 2021 by jmccr8
missed others

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Wonderful as far as your non-informed thanks for not knowing what your talking about goes.

 

And what climate produces orange, blue or purple people seeing as how we don't still see them today, or will we clone them to look like that.

ugh huh, earth calling Walker speculation and fiction doesn't mean much in the real world

The UB says they were inferior and destroyed, your alien hasn't said anything about refugees on other planets that originated on earth that do not look like one of the others.

Yes you can have an opinion but really you don't believe in either one of them so not likely I will think you are an authority on anything outside of your opinion

Our moral codes are not alien or religious we are an evolved herd animal that exists depending on the skills of each other been like that for like ever man

Really you alien hasn't told you squat you just tell us your perception of what your construct that you created told you so why not just own up to your own illusions an say you say so?

Even though I have let myself down at times it was me that picked me up and sorted it out, I believe in me even if I don't trust myself 100% of the time because as far as I know I am real to me and your alien or it's kind have never been there during any of that.

My questions were based on what was presented and not hostile, That is your bias period.

I didn't ask Will specifically as it was Luis that said bring it on and was talking to him. Halbert stepped up and am waiting to hear back and he seemed to think they were valid questions so get of your horse before you fall off.

Not much point discussing stuff with you when you are in this mood

What is opinion speculation or imagination to you is  (sometimes) real to me and apparently to some other humans 

On the other hand, yep, some stuff is pure speculation (and I mentioned that ) 

No My contact with the cosmic consciousness has not overlapped   some of the stuff in the UB but it has in many ways overlapped some other stuff : Its a big galaxy and a long historical time frame so  it is not surprising there is little  overlap  (and while i know my experiences are genuine even if they are nothing but lucid dreams,   I can't know about those of the people who channeled the UB book

No I haven't seen strangely  coloured peole on earth in the past, (or indeed any advanced unknown civilizations like Atlantis)  and I doubt the y existed,  but i have seen many  different  coloured  and many different forms of species across the galaxy.

The consciousness I know doesn't destroy people, although it may not prevent them destroying themselves.

   Its role is to guide and protect species and to try and help them survive until they evolve wise self control

Again, I don't  understand  what you don't think my alien  has told me  We've discussed this before and this may not be the place to do so again 

Yes of course its perception. So is the bible a perception of  its writers,  so is the UB.  So is any history book.

   It could not be otherwise.

When a human writes they can ONLY write from  their own perceptions,  knowledge, and understanding. 

 Lastly, there are many expert authorities in things they don't believe are real, and indeed on things they KNOW are not real. 

Some people are experts on dragons, or elves, or Klingons.

I dont claim to be  an expert,   but at least I've read the bible a few times and the UB a couple of times   

I've studied the bible with many experts, but only done online research on the UB. 

lastly. you weren't the one insisting that  Will give his opinion on the video before being prepared to give your own and i wasn't suspicious of you You are pretty upfront with any issue . 

Like i said I've become a bit suspicious and cynical after 17 years on UM.

  A pattern doesn't mean intent, but it can. That pattern has been used to bait /entrap  Will before, although not necessarily by any of the present posters  People have tried it on me in the past.  

Edited December 5, 2021 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not much point discussing stuff with you when you are in this mood

Hi Walker

I am not in a mood, start a thread or pick a topic and I will start one for you. I have told you many times in he past that I see you as a friend, that does not mean that I am willing to sidetrack this topic with you interpretations of me the UB or the bible. The person that started this thread is a believer and so are 2 other people that have responded so am interested in how they respond to my questions. You do not share their faith nor do you believe in it so my questions are specifically for them as the UB has made an impact on their life that you have not experienced or shared with them.

If you want to discuss your perceptions of the social impact of the UB the open a thread and I will join you.

[Mr Walker]

51 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I am not in a mood, start a thread or pick a topic and I will start one for you. I have told you many times in he past that I see you as a friend, that does not mean that I am willing to sidetrack this topic with you interpretations of me the UB or the bible. The person that started this thread is a believer and so are 2 other people that have responded so am interested in how they respond to my questions. You do not share their faith nor do you believe in it so my questions are specifically for them as the UB has made an impact on their life that you have not experienced or shared with them.

If you want to discuss your perceptions of the social impact of the UB the open a thread and I will join you.

I am/was just responding to your questions to me. 

 I dont have enough of an interest to start a new thread.

My concern was the way Will was being manipulated (as I saw it)  to present a pov which could then be attacked, rather  than  discussing the book or the video  through posters giving their own pov.

ps are you suggesting that any poster who doesn't believe in something, or has not experienced it  should not discuss it, or give an opinion on  it ? 

 I will give you one specific, and relevant, comment.

This is the description of earthly Midwayers  from  the Urantia book.

  quote

The United Midwayers of Urantia are organized for service with the planetary seraphim in accordance with innate endowments and acquired skills, in the following groups:

1. Midway messengers. This group bear names; they are a small corps and are of great assistance on an evolutionary world in the service of quick and reliable personal communication.

2. Planetary sentinels. Midwayers are the guardians, the sentinels, of the worlds of space. They perform the important duties of observers for all the numerous phenomena and types of communication which are of import to the supernatural beings of the realm. They patrol the invisible spirit realm of the planet.

3. Contact personalities. In the contacts made with the mortal beings of the material worlds, such as with the subject through whom these communications were transmitted, the midway creatures are always employed. They are an essential factor in such liaisons of the spiritual and the material levels.

4. Progress helpers. These are the more spiritual of the midway creatures, and they are distributed as assistants to the various orders of seraphim who function in special groups on the planet.

  https://truthbook.com/urantia-book/the-authors-of-the-urantia-book/chief-of-urantia-midwayers/

remind you of anything ? The y are  kinda like the entity  I've been describing here on UM for 17 years.

I wouldn't use those names, but I know the  "beings"  on a personal level very well, and have done for almost 60 years.

The y do exactly  what the y are described as doing here, although I would say it is all one source and entity, rather than specialised categories of being   It can just take any form, most suited to a task or role  . 

However I could be wrong. I am speaking from  personal experience, which may not be what humans universally experience.

Others may have a greater knowledge of Urantia's  "public service"  structure.   

Second, they aren't "supernatural," just highly technologically advanced  The y have a generally  higher sense of spirituality than the average human, but are not immaterial beings.  They just use technology to appear so as required.  eg to speak mind to mind, and to materialise and dematerialise, or travel instantaneously.  Naturally, even " mid 20th century " humans tended to see these as divine beings 

Indeed once you  understand that Urantia is planet earth  (in the urantian cosmology)  a lot of the section on midwayers rings very true to me given my experiences. 

On the other hand i don't personally  think these beings do originate on earth, nor is earth Urantia  The governance of the galaxy is not confined to one planet or system. It is more like the old British commonwealth   

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I am/was just responding to your questions to me. 

 I dont have enough of an interest to start a new thread.

My concern was the way Will was being manipulated (as I saw it)  to present a pov which could then be attacked, rather  than  discussing the book or the video  through posters giving their own pov.

ps are you suggesting that any poster who doesn't believe in something, or has not experienced it  should not discuss it, or give an opinion on  it ? 

 I will give you one specific, and relevant, comment.

This is the description of earthly Midwayers  from  the Urantia book.

  quote

The United Midwayers of Urantia are organized for service with the planetary seraphim in accordance with innate endowments and acquired skills, in the following groups:

1. Midway messengers. This group bear names; they are a small corps and are of great assistance on an evolutionary world in the service of quick and reliable personal communication.

2. Planetary sentinels. Midwayers are the guardians, the sentinels, of the worlds of space. They perform the important duties of observers for all the numerous phenomena and types of communication which are of import to the supernatural beings of the realm. They patrol the invisible spirit realm of the planet.

3. Contact personalities. In the contacts made with the mortal beings of the material worlds, such as with the subject through whom these communications were transmitted, the midway creatures are always employed. They are an essential factor in such liaisons of the spiritual and the material levels.

4. Progress helpers. These are the more spiritual of the midway creatures, and they are distributed as assistants to the various orders of seraphim who function in special groups on the planet.

  https://truthbook.com/urantia-book/the-authors-of-the-urantia-book/chief-of-urantia-midwayers/

remind you of anything ? The y are  kinda like the entity  I've been describing here on UM for 17 years.

I wouldn't use those names, but I know the  "beings"  on a personal level very well, and have done for almost 60 years.

The y do exactly  what the y are described as doing here, although I would say it is all one source and entity, rather than specialised categories of being   It can just take any form, most suited to a task or role  . 

However I could be wrong. I am speaking from  personal experience, which may not be what humans universally experience.

Others may have a greater knowledge of Urantia's  "public service"  structure.   

Second, they aren't "supernatural," just highly technologically advanced  The y have a generally  higher sense of spirituality than the average human, but are not immaterial beings.  They just use technology to appear so as required.  eg to speak mind to mind, and to materialise and dematerialise, or travel instantaneously.  Naturally, even " mid 20th century " humans tended to see these as divine beings 

Indeed once you  understand that Urantia is planet earth  (in the urantian cosmology)  a lot of the section on midwayers rings very true to me given my experiences. 

On the other hand i don't personally  think these beings do originate on earth, nor is earth Urantia  The governance of the galaxy is not confined to one planet or system. It is more like the old British commonwealth   

 

 

And here are a couple of other interesting things about the midwayers:

 

"Midwayers are not men, neither are they angels, but secondary midwayers are, in nature, nearer man than angel; they are, in a way, of your races and are, therefore, very understanding and sympathetic in their contact with human beings

"They exist just outside the range of mortal vision and possess sufficient latitude of adaptation to make, at will, physical contact with what humans call “material things.” 

"In the larger aspect the civilization of Urantia is the joint product of the Urantia mortals and the Urantia midwayers

"The midway culture, being the product of an immortal planetary citizenry, is relatively immune to those temporal vicissitudes which beset human civilization. The generations of men forget; the corps of midwayers remembers, and that memory is the treasure house of the traditions of your inhabited world. Thus does the culture of a planet remain ever present on that planet, and in proper circumstances such treasured memories of past events are made available, even as the re-presentation of the life and teachings of Jesus has been given by the midwayers to their cousins in the flesh.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Will Due

[Essan]

18 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The search algorithms of late seem to only take you to positive posts and sources about the Urantia book. With a little digging, however, you can find substantive critiques of Urantia scientific, cosmological and scientific absurdities.

Problems with the Cosmology and Astronomy of The Urantia Book – Ruminations

I was going to write a lenghthy critique of the Earth History aspects of the UB.

But in the end there wasn't a lot to say.   When it comes to what is wrong with it, all I could really come up with was: 

all of it   

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am/was just responding to your questions to me. 

 I dont have enough of an interest to start a new thread.

My concern was the way Will was being manipulated (as I saw it)  to present a pov which could then be attacked, rather  than  discussing the book or the video  through posters giving their own pov.

ps are you suggesting that any poster who doesn't believe in something, or has not experienced it  should not discuss it, or give an opinion on  it ? 

 I will give you one specific, and relevant, comment.

This is the description of earthly Midwayers  from  the Urantia book.

  quote

The United Midwayers of Urantia are organized for service with the planetary seraphim in accordance with innate endowments and acquired skills, in the following groups:

1. Midway messengers. This group bear names; they are a small corps and are of great assistance on an evolutionary world in the service of quick and reliable personal communication.

2. Planetary sentinels. Midwayers are the guardians, the sentinels, of the worlds of space. They perform the important duties of observers for all the numerous phenomena and types of communication which are of import to the supernatural beings of the realm. They patrol the invisible spirit realm of the planet.

3. Contact personalities. In the contacts made with the mortal beings of the material worlds, such as with the subject through whom these communications were transmitted, the midway creatures are always employed. They are an essential factor in such liaisons of the spiritual and the material levels.

4. Progress helpers. These are the more spiritual of the midway creatures, and they are distributed as assistants to the various orders of seraphim who function in special groups on the planet.

  https://truthbook.com/urantia-book/the-authors-of-the-urantia-book/chief-of-urantia-midwayers/

remind you of anything ? The y are  kinda like the entity  I've been describing here on UM for 17 years.

I wouldn't use those names, but I know the  "beings"  on a personal level very well, and have done for almost 60 years.

The y do exactly  what the y are described as doing here, although I would say it is all one source and entity, rather than specialised categories of being   It can just take any form, most suited to a task or role  . 

However I could be wrong. I am speaking from  personal experience, which may not be what humans universally experience.

Others may have a greater knowledge of Urantia's  "public service"  structure.   

Second, they aren't "supernatural," just highly technologically advanced  The y have a generally  higher sense of spirituality than the average human, but are not immaterial beings.  They just use technology to appear so as required.  eg to speak mind to mind, and to materialise and dematerialise, or travel instantaneously.  Naturally, even " mid 20th century " humans tended to see these as divine beings 

Indeed once you  understand that Urantia is planet earth  (in the urantian cosmology)  a lot of the section on midwayers rings very true to me given my experiences. 

On the other hand i don't personally  think these beings do originate on earth, nor is earth Urantia  The governance of the galaxy is not confined to one planet or system. It is more like the old British commonwealth   

 

Hi Walker

I know how to read the book and nothing personal but my questions are directed to those that BELIEVE in the book you don't so no my questions were not directed to you, you just decided to answer for everyone else.

If I am looking for a 32 t-bucket with 2021 navigator drive train wand suspension painted choke cherry black metallic with flakes then no matter how much you flash that blue 64 impala ragtop at me I am still not interested.

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If Christ is a non real construction  based on earlier myths, and never existed as a real person then he never died, was never buried and couldn't have risen from the dead.

Thus the two ideas are contradictory, or a t the very least, having a bet each way

Again, I do not know to which of Carrier's writings you are referring. As you point out, if Jesus didn't exist, then his body wasn't stolen. Carrier has an earned doctorate in ancient history from an elite university. I think he understands how "no existence" fits with "no body to steal" almost as well as you do.

Carrier's published view is that he thinks it is very unlikely that Jesus existed, but he doesn't profess certainty on the question. Even if he did, there simply is no contradiction between "Jesus didn't exist" and "If Jesus had existed, then it is more plausible that his body was stolen than that he walked out of his tomb alive again."

You're familiar with Google, try counterfactual hypothetical.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The simplest argument for a non believer is that the work is based on the mind of a well read and biblically literate individual with a vivid imagination who constructed the story for any one of many possible reasons 

That does seem to be a strong possibility in this case.

Edited December 5, 2021 by eight bits

[Essan]

So, we know for fact that these "Midwayers" know quite a bit less about the Universe, the Solar System, the history of the Earth and the origins of modern man than a small twig.   Bearing in mind that some twigs are nearly as clever as a whelk that has been dead for 13 weeks.

Please then,  explain why, when we know for certain that they are wrong about almost everything, we should believe them about anything at all?

Is the UB really just an entry in the galactic equivalent of the "World's Biggest Liar" contest?    But one that got eliminated in the very early stages as being frankly not very good and only as convinicing as the argument that most barn doors are made out of apricot flans?


 

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Again, I do not know to which of Carrier's writings you are referring. As you point out, if Jesus didn't exist, then his body wasn't stolen. Carrier has an earned doctorate in ancient history from an elite university. I think he understands how "no existence" fits with "no body to steal" almost as well as you do.

Carrier's published view is that he thinks it is very unlikely that Jesus existed, but he doesn't profess certainty on the question. Even if he did, there simply is no contradiction between "Jesus didn't exist" and "If Jesus had existed, then it is more plausible that his body was stolen than that he walked out of his tomb alive again."

You're familiar with Google, try counterfactual hypothetical.

That does seem to be a strong possibility in this case.

So, arguably non-contradictory, but definitely having a bet each way. 

 

counter factual is something untrue 

a Hypothetical is a proposition which may be true or false, usually presented  to be tested. 

So in simple terms a counter factual hypothesis is a proposition you know to be untrue (not believe to be untrue) but which is advanced for other purposes.

It wouldn't be used much in any science but is common in philosophy and in creative writing 

Given all that, the point remains; the question is either/ or. 

It can not  be both

Either Jesus the man never existed, or he did, but was crucified, died, and stayed dead, with his body being removed or misplaced 

The second is a viable hypothetical. The first is not (in  historical terms)  

The third hypothetical is unlikely, and conditional on faith.

ie that Christ was a "heavenly being"  who became man on earth through the impregnation of a virgin by the holy spirit,  was imbued with the holy spirit to do miraculous things;   died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

None of that is a matter for any historian.  It can only be accepted or denied on faith (unless an individual is revealed the truth and that certainly has not been   revealed to me .Only the power and potential/possibility of doing so has been shown to me) 

 

quotes ( Only wiki but sufficient to show Carrier's two alternative and contradictory proposals   ) 

The empty tomb[edit]

In "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb", Carrier argues that the earliest Christians probably believed that Jesus received a new spiritual body in the resurrection, and that stories of his original body disappearing from his tomb were later embellishments.[47] Alternatively, he suggests the possibility that Jesus' body was stolen or misplaced. Carrier's analysis was criticized by philosophy professor Stephen T. Davis[48] and Christian theologian Norman Geisler.[49]

 

In Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed (2009), Carrier writes on the social and intellectual context of the rise and early development of Christianity. Despite his initial skepticism of Christ myth theory, since late 2005 Carrier has considered it "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person."[55] In a blog entry from 2009, he writes "though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus], as I explained, that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review."[

In Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012), Carrier describes the application of Bayes' theorem to historical inquiry in general, and the historicity of Jesus in particular.[57] According to Carrier, the Bayes theorem is the standard by which all methodology for any historical study must adhere in order to be logically sound. In his Bayesian analysis, the ahistoricity of Jesus is "true": that is, the "most probable" Bayesian conclusion. By the same methodology, Carrier posits that Jesus originated in the realm of mythology, rather than as a historical person who was subsequently mythologized.[58] Carrier argues that the probability of Jesus' existence is somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/12000, depending on the estimates used for the computation.[59] A number of critics have rejected Carrier's ideas and methodology,[4] calling it "tenuous",[60] or "problematic and unpersuasive".[6] Simon Gathercole writes that Carrier's arguments "are contradicted by the historical data."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

Unsurprisingly most people Including academic experts)  don't see that  Bayesian  mathematics can be applied to this situation   Others argue that in applying it the probability of Christ being a real peron is very close to100% ie tha the weight of historical evidence  for Christs existence  when applied to the theorem gives this result.  

Arguably the application of this mathematical theory in historical situations would  suggest  that many real people from  history did not exist,  and many real events did not occur,  because, today, there is insufficient concrete  evidence for their existence.

History doesn't work like that, it uses context and other means to establish the historicity of people and events. 

Eg the voyages of the Argonauts were shown to be almost certainly  based on  historical voyages  (with mythological enhancement) , through mapping  described locations along the  route and events  described in the story.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Essan said:

So, we know for fact that these "Midwayers" know quite a bit less about the Universe, the Solar System, the history of the Earth and the origins of modern man than a small twig.   Bearing in mind that some twigs are nearly as clever as a whelk that has been dead for 13 weeks.

Please then,  explain why, when we know for certain that they are wrong about almost everything, we should believe them about anything at all?

Is the UB really just an entry in the galactic equivalent of the "World's Biggest Liar" contest?    But one that got eliminated in the very early stages as being frankly not very good and only as convinicing as the argument that most barn doors are made out of apricot flans?


 

The question here is what you know, how you know it, and what you  believe you know. 

Personally i agree with your pov, given your own lack of experiences with such things 

I even agree that a lot of the details are wrong,  such as earlier peoples and civilizations on earth (my own personal take on this, which is hypothetical, is that Urantia is not, and  never  was earth, but another planet which was observed, and confused with earth,  by the writer) 

None the less i have lived almost 60 years connected to a being much like the ones described here and with many of the same   professed purposes  and with a highly developed technology 

The difference is that the being i know is secular,  with a wry sense of humour   It is  more like the humans in star trek as part of the galactic federation of planets, and their laws about not interfering in the developing self aware beings of other planets, or revealing themselves on a large scale.  .  

and no, given that  I have known one of these beings for almost 60 years, I did not get the idea from  star trek Indeed it is possible Roddenberry got the idea, from his own mental  contact with such a being  

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Carrier argues that the probability of Jesus' existence is somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/12000, depending on the estimates used for the computation.

I would be interested in seeing what parameters are used for this computation, personally.

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I would be interested in seeing what parameters are used for this computation, personally.

Yes.

The Bayesian theorem allows for different outcomes from  different  inputs Thus what one considers, and inputs as,  "evidence"  for example would alter the result  

quote 

One of the many applications of Bayes' theorem is Bayesian inference, a particular approach to statistical inference. When applied, the probabilities involved in the theorem may have different probability interpretations. With Bayesian probability interpretation, the theorem expresses how a degree of belief, expressed as a probability, should rationally change to account for the availability of related evidence. Bayesian inference is fundamental to Bayesian statistics.

I am not sure what Carrier input as evidence, however academic historian s generally agree that using standard historical methodologies and what is considered normal historical  evidence, the existence of a real human Jesus is 100% or so close as to make no difference .

The idea that Christianity did not begin with one person but with an adapted construct of earlier mythologies, is simply laughed at by academic historians  (guild members or not)  , because there is NO evidence for it