Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:44 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 1007
Quote:
To suggest that I implied anything means that you are attempting to read into what I said


i was only responding to your own words:

Quote:
I never suggested that the term "Judaeo-Christian" implied that Christians and Jews were the same thing


specifically your insistence that jews and christians are not the same thing, written in the context of discussing the meaning of the word judeo-christian, implied this as your definition. <shrugs>

No i don't have to "go with" the beliefs of orthodox jews...do they not believe in the ten commandments? This is one of the many beliefs shared by both christians and jews.

The wikipedia quote has references and a blanket dismissal of wikipedia as lacking any validity based on exceptions is a logical fallacy. The fact that Jesus believed in John is shown in Matthew 3:3

<quote>For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare you the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

i agree that the early followers bit isn't relative and including it in the quote was an error on my part

regarding the cleansing of the temple...if you want to redefine your position as being "only disagreed with Sadducees and the excessive emphasis on formalised behaviour" then let me know when you finally arrive at your position...it won't change the fact that jesus criticized, and was criticized by, both pharisees and sadducees. Trying to explain away your pre-conceived notions by claiming anything that contradicts them didn't happen isn't a very compelling argument.

I agree that the roman records don't state judea specifically and that the governing of judea was different due to the lack of separation between church and state there. And i agree that the romans left the enforcement of religious laws up to the jews, but the religious laws that jesus broke weren't punishable by death and they were determined to see him dead.

I will move along now and let you have the last word.

Regards,
Makalu, unimpressed by recurring attempts to invoke a fallacious appeal to authority :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 1007
Quote:
To suggest that I implied anything means that you are attempting to read into what I said


i was only responding to your own words:

Quote:
I never suggested that the term "Judaeo-Christian" implied that Christians and Jews were the same thing


specifically your insistence that jews and christians are not the same thing, written in the context of discussing the meaning of the word judeo-christian, implied this as your definition. <shrugs>

No i don't have to "go with" the beliefs of orthodox jews...do they not believe in the ten commandments? This is one of the many beliefs shared by both christians and jews.

The wikipedia quote has references and a blanket dismissal of wikipedia as lacking any validity based on exceptions is a logical fallacy. The fact that Jesus believed in John is shown in Matthew 3:3

Quote:
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare you the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.


i agree that the early followers bit isn't relative and including it in the quote was an error on my part

regarding the cleansing of the temple...if you want to redefine your position as being "only disagreed with Sadducees and the excessive emphasis on formalised behaviour" then let me know when you finally arrive at your position...it won't change the fact that jesus criticized, and was criticized by, both pharisees and sadducees. Trying to explain away your pre-conceived notions by claiming anything that contradicts them didn't happen isn't a very compelling argument.

I agree that the roman records don't state judea specifically and that the governing of judea was different due to the lack of separation between church and state there. And i agree that the romans left the enforcement of religious laws up to the jews, but the religious laws that jesus broke weren't punishable by death and they were determined to see him dead.

I will move along now and let you have the last word.

Regards,
Makalu, unimpressed by recurring attempts to invoke a fallacious appeal to authority :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
fanofVan wrote:
I look forward to that time when the UB text may itself join this conversation about Jesus and the orchestration of his mortal death. I say orchestration because it is true the priests may have taken other steps to end Jesus life....and they did indeed....and Jesus could easily have prevented the end that came to pass and yet did not. I wonder at the endurance of this Gospel we discuss without public execution and the subsequent resurrection in the holy city at a holy time filled with pilgrims from around the world.

Well, to this I cannot speak. As indicated, I have not read the UB Papers regarding Jesus. However, I shall reiterate that, using the four "Evangelists" as a guide in the "New Testament", there is absolutely no evidence (and least none credible) that the Jewish authorities had anything to do with Jesus's death whatsoever.
Quote:
It is IMO the very public nature of the episode that launched the movement which became Christianity at this pivotal time in history. According to the paper on Creator Sons, such orchestration of events were very meaningful and symbolic to far more beings in a vast audience throughout the entire local universe. This understanding completely changes the earth centric perspective shared by Jew and Christian alike. The meaning and the value of Jesus life, death, and resurrection is far beyond what most claim or refute.

Again, I am unable to comment on this.
Quote:
Perhaps we could return to the text and explore that which illuminates this chapter in world history in greater context? Who was Jesus really? Why was he here really? What happened with him and his creation afterward? All that is in Part I. Lots to consider and discuss, yes?

What we can find in Part I we can discuss, I am inclined to agree.

Here I must say that I am willing to give the UB the preliminary benefit of the doubt. I was willing to do that with the "New Testament", but that text failed miserably to meet academic muster. If the UB can do what the Hebrew Bible has done, and what the "New Testament" has failed to do, well and good. It deserves a reading, at least, and an unbiased one at that, which is why I am reading it in order, rather than skipping around.

Makalu wrote:
Quote:
To suggest that I implied anything means that you are attempting to read into what I said


i was only responding to your own words:

Quote:
I never suggested that the term "Judaeo-Christian" implied that Christians and Jews were the same thing


specifically your insistence that jews and christians are not the same thing, written in the context of discussing the meaning of the word judeo-christian, implied this as your definition. <shrugs>

No i don't have to "go with" the beliefs of orthodox jews...do they not believe in the ten commandments? This is one of the many beliefs shared by both christians and jews.

Yes, actually, you do. Orthodoxy is the standard by which anything claiming to derive itself from Judaism in any form must be judged.

Quote:
The wikipedia quote has references and a blanket dismissal of wikipedia as lacking any validity based on exceptions is a logical fallacy. The fact that Jesus believed in John is shown in Matthew 3:3

Quote:
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare you the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

All this does is indicate that MATTHEW decided to attempt to prove that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah. So what? Given that Matthew wrote some 50 years after Jesus died, how do we know that John actually said those words? If he did, was Jesus present?

Quote:
i agree that the early followers bit isn't relative and including it in the quote was an error on my part

regarding the cleansing of the temple...if you want to redefine your position as being "only disagreed with Sadducees and the excessive emphasis on formalised behaviour" then let me know when you finally arrive at your position...it won't change the fact that jesus criticized, and was criticized by, both pharisees and sadducees. Trying to explain away your pre-conceived notions by claiming anything that contradicts them didn't happen isn't a very compelling argument.

Which is not what I said at all. What I said was that Jesus was a Pharisee who had considerable objection to other Pharisees and THEIR formalised behaviour. It could also be said that he objected to the Sadducees on the same grounds, at least to a point. As far as whether the cleansing of the Temple ever actually happened, show me any source outside the "New Testament" that indicates that it did. That would be a pretty major event, I would think, that would be noted by others. And yet when one tries to find it, they come up with bubkis. After rereading my original post, I see how you came to your misconception that I was redefining my terms. I wasn't. What I said was that if Jesus HAD cleansed the Temple, it wouldn't have been an argument with the Pharisees. It would have been so with the Sadducees. So, since his arguments were not so much with them, why would he have done it? But, I grant you that he did have issues with them too, so that might have been a motive. but again, lets ask outself what proof indicates that it did occur at all.

Quote:
I agree that the roman records don't state judea specifically and that the governing of judea was different due to the lack of separation between church and state there. And i agree that the romans left the enforcement of religious laws up to the jews, but the religious laws that jesus broke weren't punishable by death and they were determined to see him dead.

Blasphemy, ie, calling yourself the Son of God, was punishable by death.

Quote:
I will move along now and let you have the last word.

Regards,
Makalu, unimpressed by recurring attempts to invoke a fallacious appeal to authority :lol:


Again, read some history, get a degree under your belt, and then get back to me.

I tell you. One has to love (NOT!) self-hating Jews like Makalu. To have deliberately thrown away that which is most important in the life of the world... I don't get it. And then to blame your own ancestors for something they had no part of... Go figure.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Quote:
Blasphemy, ie, calling yourself the Son of God, was punishable by death.


The UB confirmed that Jesus was really the “Son of God”. Before incarnating in our planet, he was the Creator Son, Michael, the ruler of the local universe of Nebadon. In reading your posts, this one might be hard for you to accept. The Jewish authorities in those days obviously did not believe him. The passages below are from Paper 20 which if I am not mistaken you have already read.

(228.2) 20:5.5 Understanding more about the bestowal Sons, you discern why so much interest attaches to Urantia in the history of Nebadon. Your small and insignificant planet is of local universe concern simply because it is the mortal home world of Jesus of Nazareth. It was the scene of the final and triumphant bestowal of your Creator Son, the arena in which Michael won the supreme personal sovereignty of the universe of Nebadon.

(229.1) 20:6.2 On a mortal-bestowal mission a Paradise Son is always born of woman and grows up as a male child of the realm, as Jesus did on Urantia. These Sons of supreme service all pass from infancy through youth to manhood just as does a human being. In every respect they become like the mortals of the race into which they are born. They make petitions to the Father as do the children of the realms in which they serve. From a material viewpoint, these human-divine Sons live ordinary lives with just one exception: They do not beget offspring on the worlds of their sojourn; that is a universal restriction imposed on all orders of the Paradise bestowal Sons.

(229.2) 20:6.3 As Jesus worked on your world as the carpenter’s son, so do other Paradise Sons labor in various capacities on their bestowal planets. You could hardly think of a vocation that has not been followed by some Paradise Son in the course of his bestowal on some one of the evolutionary planets of time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
I have indeed read Paper 20. That is not the point. The point is whether I am inclined to believe Paper 20. Right now, Larry is correct. I am reading the UB sequentially because it is interesting, not because I believe or disbelieve the contents thereof. Of course, from a Jewish perspective, anyone claiming to be the Son of God is indeed committing blasphemy, and would indeed have been stoned to death forthwith. That is why, if one relies strictly on the "New Testament", there is NO way that Jesus would have been released to the Romans IF he had made that claim. He'd have been arrested, poosibly subjected to questioning, and then bound over for trial as soon as a quorum of 71 had been assembled.

This leads me to believe that the claim was never actually made, and that, in fact, if he WAS arrested, it wasn't by the Jews. The fact that he died on a Roman cross further indicates this. If the Jews had wanted him dead, they'd have found a way to do it without inviting their hated overlords to the party.

Mind you, all of this is said based on my knowledge of Jesus from the "New Testament" and the Church of England. The UB Papers do not yet fit in with my knowledge, as I've not read them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Well chosen and pertinent quotes YSMAEL; even so you can see how quotes can lack the force of conviction when their source is not viewed to be valid or authentic. That's another reason why personal interpretations can prove to be more persuasive than quotes can.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:08 pm +0000
Posts: 171
Yaakov001 wrote:
Of course, from a Jewish perspective, anyone claiming to be the Son of God is indeed committing blasphemy, and would indeed have been stoned to death forthwith. That is why, if one relies strictly on the "New Testament", there is NO way that Jesus would have been released to the Romans IF he had made that claim. He'd have been arrested, poosibly subjected to questioning, and then bound over for trial as soon as a quorum of 71 had been assembled.This leads me to believe that the claim was never actually made, and that, in fact, if he WAS arrested, it wasn't by the Jews. The fact that he died on a Roman cross further indicates this. If the Jews had wanted him dead, they'd have found a way to do it without inviting their hated overlords to the party.


Yaakov001, I think the above statement illustrates a lack of insight into the environment that existed at the time of Christ's passion.

1. Rome ruled Jerusalem.
2. Rome occupied Jerusalem.
3. Rome said (threatened reprisals) to Jerusalem leadership, thou shall not kill.
4. Jerusalem's spiritual leadership was at the time, quite the corrupt and jealous brood of vipers.
5. The Roman pontiff was covering his own bucket.
6. Christ was popular with the general populace.
7. And of course there were huge crowds of people in Jerusalem for their major feast day, Passover
so.. Roman troops were on what we might refer to in today's terms as a high alert status.

So, what better way for the Jewish leadership to rid themselves of this popular 'blasphemer', without appearing to pollute themselves in the process. Additionally, they can appear to be submissive and not rebellious to Rome by taking their case to Rome. They'd been forbidden by Rome to take the death penalty into their own hands. So, they take the 'blasphemer' to the Roman proconsul and request the death sentence for the 'blasphemer' who calls himself a king. When Pilate sees through their ruse and initially finds no guilt in the man (God/Christ), the brood of vipers hiss and scream that they will see to it that Caesar is notified that there is a Jewish usurper who calls himself a king in Jerusalem, yet the Roman pontiff Pilate, is unwilling to defend Rome from such rebellious behaviors and take appropriate action to put down a possible revolt. Pilate, being the coward/politician he was, caves to the will of the viperous brood of snakes.

In this/my knowledge does not come from TUB, but rather from the Spirit/Word of God found in the Bible and the 'Poem of the Man-God'.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
I'll have to reply to this more thoroughly when I have computer available, but my point is that they HADN'T been forbidden to exercise the death penalty on malefactors against their own Law. In fact, they were the only people in the Empire so permitted. The "New Testament" saying otherwise is simply not reliable. That, combined with some of the other unreliable data in it (like Jesus getting away with "cleansing the Temple" and NOT being turned into Swiss cheese by the Roman guards around the place ), make for a text that simply can't be trusted. Add that all to Paul's re-definition of terms, such that the word "Messiah" (for example) means something very different to a Christian than it EVER meant to a Jew (and there are plenty of other words that Paul does that to), and you end up with a religion, Christianity, which has virtually NOTHING of Judaism left in it! And that is before all the Greco-Roman influence, followed by the later Germanic influence that has made Christianity what it is today. Christmas trees and wreaths, anyone (both from a rathe quaint Germanic Pagan custom, those)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Yes, you are quite right that Christianity, as we know it today, is very much intertwined with paganism. You will eventually get to a paper that analyzes in detail the origins of Paul's theology (which is very, very different from The Master's).

195:9.10 Christianity is threatened by slow death from formalism, overorganization, intellectualism, and other nonspiritual trends. The modern Christian church is not such a brotherhood of dynamic believers as Jesus commissioned continuously to effect the spiritual transformation of successive generations of mankind.

195:9.11 So-called Christianity has become a social and cultural movement as well as a religious belief and practice. The stream of modern Christianity drains many an ancient pagan swamp and many a barbarian morass; many olden cultural watersheds drain into this present-day cultural stream as well as the high Galilean tablelands which are supposed to be its exclusive source.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:03 am +0000
Posts: 157
Riktare --
You've disregarded the admonition to not quote the UB beyond the point where Yaakov is reading. Your posting privileges will be revoked if you do this again. If you have something to say, please do so in your own words.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Hmmmm. Okay. I didn't know that was an admonition. (It seemed like a personal preference on the basis of practical reasons, but I haven't read every post in these forums so I may have missed something)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Riktare, please note that it is not a personal preferance of mine either way. On a purely personal level, if you quoted from Papers I have not read, but did so while providing all due background information to your quote, I personally would not object. HOWEVER, it appears that a regulation set by the Censors restricts quotes to being within a reader's experience level. I shall assume that the Censors have a good reason for imposing this regulation. Perhaps previous experience has taught them that, while it may NOT be necessary with me, it is generally necessary with others, and making a case-by-case decision of who follows what rules would be a royal pain in the tukhis. I shall therefore encourage you and all contributors to please follow the regulations set by the Censors, even if you, or I, or both of us, might deem them unnecessary for a given reason. I think that things will run smoother, and I really don't want to see anyone booted for something so silly. Thanks to all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4959
Greetings Riktare!! I was similarly admonished by Larry on the same subject, for responding to Ya'akov....so don't take it personally. And, it should be noted that our new friend and fellow student Ya'akov is making the situation more difficult by posting comments and questions that are outside and beyond his current sequential reading. I think Larry's direction includes responding to such with non-text replies.

I've only been around about 3 years myself but it is pretty rare for new students to come here within a sequential reading as most come with specific topics or general questions that are not constrained by a sequential reading. But sequential reading is recommended from first page to last, from the realities furthest from us to our local and personal situation. I think Larry is trying very hard to allow each student to be self directed in their discovery and for us here to be patient and gentle and not overwhelm anyone with too much too quickly which can result in abandonment of the studies altogether.

Ya'akov has termed this moderator role as censor which I dispute. Larry has shown great patience over the years with myself and all others that post here. We must remember that while posters discuss issues, the moderators must manage a system and a totality or wholeness of truthbook as a body of work. A difficult process indeed. It takes real dedication and wisdom to fill this role in such a place with all the potential that exists for bad outcomes.

I suggest we follow Larry's lead here and would ask Ya'akov to stick to subjects and questions that ARE within the Papers he has read. There is much to discuss and discover in the first 25 papers for a sequential reader to share. Questions and comments outside of the text read will be met only with personal understanding of text but not with text itself - unless and until Ya'akov can cite something specific in-text that he has a question about.

Let us all maintain our good humor as we dance this complicated give and take with a new and sequential reader. Peace.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Please note that I use the term Censor only in the sense that it would have been used by the Ancient Romans, to suggest a Moderator. I still tend to occasionally think in very Classical language based on the unique training I received. As I have said in a different thread, although I am indeed a Jew, my first experiences were with the Roman and English Churches, and I got a ream of Latin with that. After almost becoming a monk and priest... well, you can imagine the results.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2444
Quote:
That, combined with some of the other unreliable did in it (like Jesus getting away with "cleansing the Temple" and NOT being turned into Swiss cheese by the Roman guards around the place ), make for a text that simply can't be trusted.


Your assuming that Jesus wasn't greatly feared by his enemies. Many of his enemies thought he must be league with devils to do such powerful things. Jesus in TUB is portrayed as being nothing like the depictions we see of a cowering hippie. Superstitious fear is a powerful influence in primitive man.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group