Super Human Authorship of the Urantia Book .

For example,
Zwicky using the virial theorem to estimate the total mass of the cluster, he found that there was a larger amount of mass that could be estimated based on the visible parts of galaxies, inferring (1934) the presence of dark matter.

The principle of Zwicky was different from that described in the TUB.

The concept had not been discovered ultimaton, and I think that even now are?

In fact, I don't care who wrote TUB, whether it was a human or a superhuman. What is important to me is what it says and that it works and it explains many of my personal experiencies, especially many with my Thought Adjuster. This is undeniable evidence (to me).

I know a number of Evangelical Protestants, some orthodox Catholics, at least one Muslim, several Course in Miracle followers, a Kriya Yoga devotee, an Eckankar practitioner (at least, I think he's still one)--all of whom make exactly the same claim about their source material: It works. But these source materials all teach very different, and incompatible, truths about reality.

I very much agree with your previous comment on this thread, about us needing to considering both positive and negative evidence.

However, in spite of being a natural scientist myself, it is not the natural science contents of TUB but rather the thelogical and philosophical contents of TUB that amazes me. I cannot claim to have been a follower of all the religions that you listed but I have been seriously involved in Christianity and Neopaganism (mostly Wicca) and have studied in detail Zen-Buddhism, Hinduism and Shamanism. In addition to that I have read Kabbalistic texts and many New Age authors. What strikes me is that TUB is compatible with all of them - once you look beyond the literal interpretation that some fundamentalist factions impose on their sacred texts. When you look at the real meaning behind the words, all of the religions that I know of, become genuine subsets of what TUB describes.

This, in addition to my intimate knowledge and trust on my Thought Adjuster, is what says to me that TUB is true. I don't think its scientific value (in natural sciencies, that is), is nowhere near its theological and philosophical value. As for the scientific contents, even TUB itself says:

101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

Even for me it was the same, as is said above.
I am a Catholic Christian and I also studied the major religions.
But after many years my spirit has taken me out of this, took me out of religion. Then I finally discovered TUB, this was only the latest episode in the timeline. When I came to read TUB I had already formed a thought, especially based on the experiences of life.
TUB I can safely say that for me it was a reversal of what I believed because I was already disillusioned about everything.

TUB was for me a stabilization of a caratttere who had already taken shape within me for years.

However, in spite of being a natural scientist myself, it is not the natural science contents of TUB but rather the thelogical and philosophical contents of TUB that amazes me. I cannot claim to have been a follower of all the religions that you listed but I have been seriously involved in Christianity and Neopaganism (mostly Wicca) and have studied in detail Zen-Buddhism, Hinduism and Shamanism. In addition to that I have read Kabbalistic texts and many New Age authors. What strikes me is that TUB is compatible with all of them - once you look beyond the literal interpretation that some fundamentalist factions impose on their sacred texts. When you look at the real meaning behind the words, all of the religions that I know of, become genuine subsets of what TUB describes.

I don't agree. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that the atonement doctrine is not just a superficial detail in both Evangelical and Catholic Christianity. But the UB explicitly rejects that doctrine, and is therefore not compatible with these religions on just that point alone. And as I'm sure you've discovered, if you try to discuss the UB with a committed Evangelical or Catholic, the rejection of the atonement doctrine is an instant dealbreaker. The rejection of reincarnation is completely incompatible with most versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many New Age factions.

As a UB believer, you most likely believe what the UB says about such things, which is that the world religions contain elements of earlier epochal revelations, distorted to a greater or lesser extent by human superstitions, cultural influences, and philosophical tinkering. You cannot seriously believe that this view is compatible with those other revelations.

To take a single, but dramatic, example, the Catholic Church claims to be the infallible vehicle of the revelation of Jesus to this world. It refers to this revelation as the "deposit of faith" and claims that it alone possesses and teaches that revelation in its fullest and inerrant form. Like the UB, the Catholic Church claims that other religions, including non-Christian and even pagan ones, contain elements of truth, but only incompletely and with distortion. This isn't just an optional detail about Catholicism. It's the very foundation of what the Church says it's all about. It claims to be the one and only church actually founded and supernaturally protected by Jesus himself. You simply cannot reconcile that claim with what the UB says about itself. If you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about itself, you must reject the UB as fraudulent, demonic, or delusional. If you believe what the UB says about itself, you must reject what the Catholic Church says about itself as utterly misguided. There is compatibility between the two on some issues of spirituality, yes, but there is no compatibility between them on what they fundamentally are.

As for the scientific contents, even TUB itself says:

101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

Yes, but as has been often pointed out, this "disclaimer" does not concede the actual presence of errors. Statements could "need revision" for reasons other than being wrong. They could simply be incomplete. And you have neglected to include the passage, just a bit further down from what you just quoted:

101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

As Phil Calabrese pointed out in the essay to which I linked, and as others have pointed out in this forum, it's impossible to reduce confusion and eliminate error by perpetrating error! If you take "need of revision" to mean that the UB contains scientific errors, then you must take the UB to be contradicting itself here where it's claiming the "elimination of error." That leads to this conclusion: Either the UB is self-contradictory concerning its science content, or it does not contain errors.

Phil Calabrese, the people at UBtheNews, and no doubt many others, are betting that all the apparent scientific errors in the UB will, in the fullness of time, turn out to be fulfilled predictions. I fully appreciate why they might take that stance. But that faith-based belief in how things will eventually turn out is not evidence. For evidence, we are limited to the knowledge that we have now, not to possible future discoveries.

… Similarly, according to best current knowledge, life on this planet is older than 550 million years; and the mass of the planet 2 billion years ago was not a tenth of its current mass. And the liquidity of water actually is predicted by its known micro-properties, if you include the properties of hydrogen bonds, discovered in 1931 but not widely known until Pauling wrote about them in 1939.
…
So, my point is that a fair and objective analysis needs to deal with more than just the predictive successes. For one thing, there is the necessity of confirming that certain things weren't known or at least widely conjectured back when the UB was still being put together. This involves actually consulting the sources of that period. And fairness requires acknowledging when science calls the UB wrong, and not trying to whitewash it.

All supposed 'errors in TUB' you mention here, were explained (to you) in other threads, as not being errors.. Modern science may "call TUB wrong", but I really don’t see it..

… you most likely believe what the UB says about such things, which is that the world religions contain elements of earlier epochal revelations, distorted to a greater or lesser extent by human superstitions, cultural influences, and philosophical tinkering. You cannot seriously believe that this view is compatible with those other revelations. …

What you apparently see as "world religions" here, are institutionalized religions or churches, which (indeed) very likely distorted earlier revelations to a more or lesser extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have their original (relatively undistorted) scriptures to compare to TUB (except perhaps for some ancient Vedic scriptures)..

As for the scientific contents, even TUB itself says:
101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

Yes, but as has been often pointed out, this "disclaimer" does not concede the actual presence of errors. Statements could "need revision" for reasons other than being wrong. They could simply be incomplete. …

Agreed..

All supposed 'errors in TUB' you mention here, were explained (to you) in other threads, as not being errors.. Modern science may "call TUB wrong", but I really don’t see it..

Well, we had an entire thread about the age of life. The outcome of that discussion was, at best, that scientific estimates of the age of the oldest known life forms should be viewed with some skepticism, and revisions to those estimates may soon come. That's fine, but I'd hardly call that an "explanation", in the sense of explaining anything away. The fact remains that according to the currently received view in the relevant sciences, life is older than 550 million years. We can agree to disagree as to how secure the science must be before we can speak of errors.

Much the same point applies to the Big Bang theory, but more so. There are dissenters, but their voice is overwhelmed by the number of those who accept the theory.

The point about the mass of the Earth being only a tenth of its present mass 2 billion years ago has been mentioned here a few times, by me, but I haven't yet seen any reconciliation of that with science. Maybe I missed it?

Thus, the point is, and has always been when I've brought this up, that in the light of current scientific judgment, these things are errors. I don't claim that current scientific judgment is the Last Word. In science, there is no last word. I do claim that if we're going to use current scientific judgment to validate the UB, without asking whether this current opinion is likely to shift, then it is fair to take the same stance where science contradicts the UB.

What you apparently see as "world religions" here, are institutionalized religions or churches, which (indeed) very likely distorted earlier revelations to a more or lesser extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have their original (relatively undistorted) scriptures to compare to TUB (except perhaps for some ancient Vedic scriptures)..

I'll make no apology for viewing the Roman Catholic Church as a world religion. It is institutionalized, yes, but I'm speaking of the core teachings promulgated for 2,000 years by that institution. To be sure, we don't have the original autographic manuscripts, but it's well known that the Bible is probably the best-attested ancient document known to humanity. My point wasn't that those teachings are true (or false, for that matter), but that it is simply inaccurate to claim that all the world religions can be reconciled with each other. The Church's stance toward other religions is strikingly similar to the UB's stance, namely that all others are distorted or incomplete.

We don't have the original manuscript of the UB either, or the original plates. All were carefully destroyed. We are therefore in no position to judge how much the UB may have been corrupted, even assuming that it is of superhuman authorship. Again, I'm not arguing that the UB was corrupted. I'm simply pointing out that we can't know that it isn't.

Has anyone mentioned that the Urantia Book apparently suggests that Pentecost happened on the same day as Jesus' ascension, rather than ten days afterward? This would make Pentecost forty days after Passover, a possible error since Pentecost is fifty days after Passover.

Jesus' Ascension and Pentecost, 40 Days or 50 Days?
By
Peter Holley
http://beamsdoorway.bizland.com/urantia/

What strikes me is that TUB is compatible with all of them - once you look beyond the literal interpretation that some fundamentalist factions impose on their sacred texts. When you look at the real meaning behind the words, all of the religions that I know of, become genuine subsets of what TUB describes.

I don't agree. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that the atonement doctrine is not just a superficial detail in both Evangelical and Catholic Christianity. But the UB explicitly rejects that doctrine, and is therefore not compatible with these religions on just that point alone. And as I'm sure you've discovered, if you try to discuss the UB with a committed Evangelical or Catholic, the rejection of the atonement doctrine is an instant dealbreaker. The rejection of reincarnation is completely incompatible with most versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many New Age factions.

As a UB believer, you most likely believe what the UB says about such things, which is that the world religions contain elements of earlier epochal revelations, distorted to a greater or lesser extent by human superstitions, cultural influences, and philosophical tinkering. You cannot seriously believe that this view is compatible with those other revelations.

Actually, my views are not based on what TUB says about other revelations. It is based on what I have read myself from those revelations and what I have read from TUB, and then having tried to reconcile those views in my mind.

Note that I said that "TUB is compatible with all of them". I did not say that "they all are compatible with TUB". These two are very different statements.

When I was a devoted Christian, I believed that all the other religions are wrong. Having been a Protestant, I was also absolutely certain that the Catholics had been deceived by the Devil. When I was a Neopagan, I believed that Christians had gotten it all wrong.

Now that I am trying to follow the faith of Jesus, I see that all those religions are right - considering that they see only a part of the whole picture. This was also Jesus' attitude to other religions: he always tried to find what was common and what was good in them.

The fact that TUB can include all the other religions (at least those that I know something about) but not the other way round, tells me that TUB is more worth believing than any other religion. I have always been looking for "the theory of everything" in the scope of religion and now I have found it!

As for the atonement, yes, that seems to be an insurmountable obstacle. Let's first look at what it means:

"The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one."
(From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm )

"(a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men."
(The same source)

I don't see a real contradiction with TUB there.

I see how the core of the atonement doctrine is actually "based on a true story". TUB says:

(400.3) 36:3.8 When the Life Carriers operating on a new world have once succeeded in producing a being with will, with the power of moral decision and spiritual choice, then and there their work terminates — they are through; they may manipulate the evolving life no further. From this point forward the evolution of living things must proceed in accordance with the endowment of the inherent nature and tendencies which have already been imparted to, and established in, the planetary life formulas and patterns. The Life Carriers are not permitted to experiment or to interfere with will; they are not allowed to dominate or arbitrarily influence moral creatures.

This basically means that people living now are handicapped because of some bad moral choices made by our great-great-...great-ancestors. You can think this long chain of dependencies on moral choices as "the original sin" in the sense that the Christian Churches talk about it.

Michael of Nebadon loves us and wants the best for us. As a part of His career was a bestowal to a human body. What He did on Urantia was for the benefit of the whole Nebadon. He did not save Himself from any part of what it is being a human, and in fact he got a lot more suffering than most of us get.

What we had been doing before that on this planet was to give human and animal sacrifices to please the gods. So it was natural for us to understand that Jesus was the final sacrifice. Even though that was not correct, it proved to be a misunderstanding that was very beneficial. After all, it ended human and animal sacrifice once and for all (for Christians, that is).

The part of the atonement doctrine that says that God needed a sacrifice to forgive us is incorrect. However, the reasoning back then was understandable. People felt that the gap between them and God was huge. And, in fact, this gap was something that Michael came to bridge. Not by being a sacrifice pleasing to God but through other means.

What I see is that an individual professing the Catholic religion would not actually lose anything by dropping this part of the atonement doctrine. In fact, they would gain a really loving Father, to an extent they had not earlier believed even possible.

As for the institution, the Catholic Church, however, has everything to lose. In the religion of Jesus their is no need for intermediaries between the individual and God. In fact, God is already in us. But that is also said in the Bible: Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." and John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

If humans did not have any misconceptions, we would not have needed TUB. But as TUB explains the real facts (as far as we can understand them at the moment), I can now see where the misconceptions are. Having had many of them myself, I feel I have the right to say so.

Thus, I say it again: TUB is compatible with the religions that I know, to the extent I know them. I can see many misunderstandings but I can also see where they got it right, even in cases where they did not understand that themselves.

I agree with you in that people representing those other religions might not agree and I am pretty sure that the organizations behind the religions do not agree with me. After all, the organizations have everything to lose.

If humans did not have any misconceptions, we would not have needed TUB. But as TUB explains the real facts (as far as we can understand them at the moment), I can now see where the misconceptions are. Having had many of them myself, I feel I have the right to say so.

Thus, I say it again: TUB is compatible with the religions that I know, to the extent I know them. I can see many misunderstandings but I can also see where they got it right, even in cases where they did not understand that themselves.

I agree with you in that people representing those other religions might not agree and I am pretty sure that the organizations behind the religions do not agree with me. After all, the organizations have everything to lose.

Although TUB is compatible with any other religion, however Resstende in the creed of a religion, this is incomprehensible.
That is, to understand the true scope of the message contained in the TUB, we must be detached from the religious concept of religion.

I'm not saying that you can not share TUB coming from a religious belief, I'm saying that everything is much more complex.

Apparently the Christian religions, including Catholic Christian should be more attuned to other .....

That is, to understand the true scope of the message contained in the TUB, we must be detached from the religious concept of religion.

I think that's the main reason why religions have given so little to me - I have always been detached from that concept!

In my case the Thought Adjuster has led me to TUB and not the other way round. Hence, I am not looking at TUB from a religious concept of religion but rather from a very practical viewpoint. Maybe that's also why I am not so concerned whether the authors of TUB are superhuman or not.

That is, to understand the true scope of the message contained in the TUB, we must be detached from the religious concept of religion.

I think that's the main reason why religions have given so little to me - I have always been detached from that concept!

In my case the Thought Adjuster has led me to TUB and not the other way round. Hence, I am not looking at TUB from a religious concept of religion but rather from a very practical viewpoint. Maybe that's also why I am not so concerned whether the authors of TUB are superhuman or not.

It is exactly what has happened to me. When I met TUB, my thoughts were already detached from the concepts of religion. I also investigated the so-called esoteric reality, but without coming to any conclusion.

The fact is that my mind was already prepared to accept TUB, in fact I was immediately in line with the innovative thinking of the Universal Father.

I was already living in me this idea, so it was not something really difficult to accept, even ...

I read that article that Phil wrote and its pretty good. Obviously everyone has their own belief as to what the u.b is saying exactly. For example he thinks the non-breather world is Ganymede, I for a long time believed it was on the Kuiper Cliff and so did Chris halvorson, now after a random dream (not very credible source) hahaha, I believe it is on the ege of the solar system collecting heat from the Bow Shock of our solar system instead of the Sun.

Either way though it doesn't matter what we believe because if we find a Alien world where there are non-breathers it will be pretty hard to debate the u.b hahah, if we find eden in the location the u.b gives us, it will be somewhat harder to debate against the u.b if we find the Mesotron it will be harder, if we find that of the 30 stars nearest ours only 3 are brighter etc. All of these discovery's should happen with the next 100 year's. So we will find out soon enough..... Etleast mankind will find out and thats what really matters. I had the Urantia book revealed to me in a dream when I was 16 in a pretty big way so I don't have much doubt as to it's authneticity.

Phil definitely made a good stab at it though and I appreciate that big time. I am glad he is one of my facebook friends hahaha.

… The point about the mass of the Earth being only a tenth of its present mass 2 billion years ago has been mentioned here a few times, by me, but I haven't yet seen any reconciliation of that with science. Maybe I missed it? …

You’re right, this point never raised any discussion.. Perhaps this is because nobody can tell you what matter/mass actually is, or isn’t.

We may initially assume that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of atoms which are made of even smaller particles, etcetera. However, the notion that all matter must be made of something, ultimately leads to an 'infinite regress'; if something is always made of other things, then what are the other things made of, and so on, ad infinitum. Logically, this amounts to accepting that all matter is made out of nothing..

So, if we do not even understand what matter/mass is, then who are we to speculate that the Earth cannot have been a tenth of its present mass only 2 billion years ago?..

As for the atonement, yes, that seems to be an insurmountable obstacle. Let's first look at what it means:

"The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one."
(From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm )

"(a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men."
(The same source)

I don't see a real contradiction with TUB there.

That's because you haven't really focused on the atonement doctrine. Instead, you've picked out the incarnation doctrine, which is pretty much compatible with the UB. Your source doesn't say that they atonement doctrine just is the incarnation doctrine, which would be utterly wrong. It only says that it's founded on the incarnation doctrine, which is correct. That is, the atonement doctrine can't even get started without the incarnation doctrine. "Satisfaction for all offense or an injury" is the relevant meaning, and this is the very thing that the UB rejects. It's a deep contradiction.

This basically means that people living now are handicapped because of some bad moral choices made by our great-great-...great-ancestors. You can think this long chain of dependencies on moral choices as "the original sin" in the sense that the Christian Churches talk about it.

You can think of it that way if you want, but any Catholic theologian will tell you that the "stain of original sin" is not just a causal ripple effect of bad choices.

The part of the atonement doctrine that says that God needed a sacrifice to forgive us is incorrect. However, the reasoning back then was understandable. People felt that the gap between them and God was huge. And, in fact, this gap was something that Michael came to bridge. Not by being a sacrifice pleasing to God but through other means.

What I see is that an individual professing the Catholic religion would not actually lose anything by dropping this part of the atonement doctrine. In fact, they would gain a really loving Father, to an extent they had not earlier believed even possible.

I'd agree with you on the latter point, but I'm well aware that from the Catholic standpoint, "dropping this part of the atonement doctrine" is nothing more than defining your own new religion. The sacrifice of the Mass in Catholicism is not optional. If you're going to talk about the compatibility of things, it's best to talk of them as they are, rather than as they would be if you had the opportunity to reform them.

I use the Catholic religion as an example here because it has the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it) of having well-defined doctrines.

So, if we do not even understand what matter/mass is, then who are we to speculate that the Earth cannot have been a tenth of its present mass only 2 billion years ago?..

In that case, who are we indeed to say that the UB's many other statements about mass and matter are free of error?

Oh well.

I wonder what set Dan Massey off about that "100 octaves" remark in Paper 42.