Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:05 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
I substantiated my position. I showed there are patterns in creation which you denied. The quote I provided is obvious and does not even warrant me to elaborate on the pattern of repeating 6s. Others see it but you don't. It is what it is. We can agree to disagree on this issue, I guess.
:shock:


fanofVan wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
more coincidence? surely!

Quote:
58:1.1 (664.2) 600,000,000 years ago the commission of Life Carriers sent out from Jerusem arrived on Urantia and began the study of physical conditions preparatory to launching life on world number 606 of the Satania system. This was to be our six hundred and sixth experience with the initiation of the Nebadon life patterns in Satania and our sixtieth opportunity to make changes and institute modifications in the basic and standard life designs of the local universe.


Repeating 66666s...

The truth hidden in plain view can be glaringly and painfully obvious at times.


So....is the magic number 666 or 606 or just any 6 will do wherever its found? And still waiting for the meaning and value of these numbers?

The fact that math and universe reality patterns do include numerical patterns of significance does not in the least support your contentions here BB. You reach beyond all logic and reason to prove something unrelated to either of those, something mystical and mysterious which does not exist. Do the System worlds numbered 17, 58, 149, and 605 also share such numerological "values"? Or is it just recurring 6's? Come come bb...you are so much brighter than this!!

Is truth "hidden"?

Glaringly and painfully obvious indeed..... :? :roll: 8)

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Riktare wrote:
How do you get the number 666 associated with the one time system ruler? If I recall, The Book of Revelation calls 666 "The Mark of the Beast". Later, the apostle who narrates describes viewing perfected/perfecting one time mortals in ascension who have been cleansed of every mark of the beast, which we are taught by UB revelators are the artifacts, inclinations and intentions of an animal level of existence.


666 is assigned to Satan, the Beast, of the book of Revelation.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1034
Number patterns does not make it numerology, though. When one refers to "numerology" one is - by definition - referring to something mystical/ magical/ supernatural about numbers. Not just patterns in and of itself.

So if you want to discuss the existence of number patterns in the UB, you should say so. "Numerology" is unnecessarily provocative and misleading.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
I conceded to that after reviewing the standard definition of numerology.


Agon D. Onter wrote:
Number patterns does not make it numerology, though. When one refers to "numerology" one is - by definition - referring to something mystical/ magical/ supernatural about numbers. Not just patterns in and of itself.

So if you want to discuss the existence of number patterns in the UB, you should say so. "Numerology" is unnecessarily provocative and misleading.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1034
Oh, right, I got the two threads mixed up because they are very similar.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon D. Onter wrote:
Oh, right, I got the two threads mixed up because they are very similar.


cool.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 980
Quote:
666 is assigned to Satan, the Beast, of the book of Revelation.


I don't doubt that there are many who believe such a thing. But does the text of the biblical book itself support such conjecture?

Hebrew words corresponding to English "beast" or "animal" occur rather often in Genesis and other early books of the Bible. None of them refer to Satan, The Devil or Lucifer, do they?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
John equates Satan and the Beast in Revelations.


Riktare wrote:
Quote:
666 is assigned to Satan, the Beast, of the book of Revelation.


I don't doubt that there are many who believe such a thing. But does the text of the biblical book itself support such conjecture?

Hebrew words corresponding to English "beast" or "animal" occur rather often in Genesis and other early books of the Bible. None of them refer to Satan, The Devil or Lucifer, do they?

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1034
BB,
Don't forget that, according to TUB, the Book of Revelations as it exists for us is hardly a reliable source.

Quote:
139:4.14 (1555.7) When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable. Plus, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some revelations from John not found in TUB but cross reference with older Hebrew religious texts. They are valid to me as well.

My position basically is to vet the text, just as I do TUB revelations. I don't blindly go into a revelation without imposing a critical analysis on it. And for the record, not every revelation in TUB I accept as righteous or agreeable in value. Many Divine forces that have delivered revelations to us are subject to error and sin. In my eyes, the Bible, TUB and all other purportedly divine texts are fallible.

My position is not up for debate. I am merely disclaiming it so you know where I stand. But people are free to ask me questions and discuss it with me.




Agon D. Onter wrote:
BB,
Don't forget that, according to TUB, the Book of Revelations as it exists for us is hardly a reliable source.

Quote:
139:4.14 (1555.7) When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1034
brooklyn_born wrote:
I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable.


This sounds like specious, circular logic to me.

brooklyn_born wrote:


Plus, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some revelations from John not found in TUB but cross reference with older Hebrew religious texts. They are valid to me as well.

My position basically is to vet the text, just as I do TUB revelations. I don't blindly go into a revelation without imposing a critical analysis on it. And for the record, not every revelation in TUB I accept as righteous or agreeable in value. Many Divine forces that have delivered revelations to us are subject to error and sin. In my eyes, the Bible, TUB and all other purportedly divine texts are fallible.

My position is not up for debate. I am merely disclaiming it so you know where I stand. But people are free to ask me questions and discuss it with me.



While you may say that your position is not up for debate, your logic is flawed. You say you have imposed a "critical analysis" and yet, in turns, you have said with respect to the question at hand (666/ Beast referring to Satan) that the Bible is correct; the Bible is not correct; the TUB is not correct; and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because 'older Hebrew texts are valid'. These are not consistent and do not demonstrate 'critical analysis' but simply advancing opinions of these texts that suit your position without regard to logic or consistency.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon D. Onter wrote:
I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable.

This sounds like specious, circular logic to me.




cross-referencing is circular logic?

Quote:
While you may say that your position is not up for debate, your logic is flawed. You say you have imposed a "critical analysis" and yet, in turns, you have said with respect to the question at hand (666/ Beast referring to Satan) that the Bible is correct; the Bible is not correct; the TUB is not correct; and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because 'older Hebrew texts are valid'.

These are not consistent and do not demonstrate 'critical analysis' but simply advancing opinions of these texts that suit your position without regard to logic or consistency.


It does not appear you understand what a critical analysis is based on your above response. Please refer to the screengrab:

Image

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
And for clarity on my position, all religious, spiritual, holy and revelatory texts are fallible. But I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1034
Quote:
cross-referencing is circular logic?


There are NO 'cross references' in the TUB that state Satan is the 666 Beast. When that was brought to your attention, you said it is found in the Bible. When it was brought to your attention that TUB says the book of Revelations is fragmented and distorted, you said that you believe Bible references that are 'cross referenced'.

That is circular logic.

Show me an example of a reference from TUB that supports 666/ Beast = Satan.

All you can show is the book of Revelations, which you and I BOTH agree is not accurate. The only books you seem to have 100% faith in on this topic are the "older Hebrew texts" which you never cite specifically.

Sorry but "Critical analysis" is not someone's opinion despite you citing the very first link you find on a Google search after entering the phrase 'critical analysis'. However, even going by that source you chose to cite, if you continue reading the material all the way through, it states:


"Even though as a writer you set the standards, you should be open-minded, well informed, and fair. You can express your opinions, but you should also back them up with evidence."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon D. Onter wrote:
cross-referencing is circular logic?

There are NO 'cross references' in the TUB that state Satan is the 666 Beast. When that was brought to your attention, you said it is found in the Bible. When it was brought to your attention that TUB says the book of Revelations is fragmented and distorted, you said that you believe Bible references that are 'cross referenced'.

That is circular logic.

Show me an example of a reference from TUB that supports 666/ Beast = Satan.


You created a strawman on me. At no time did I say you could find 666 directly assigned to Satan in TUB. I said that the two numbers, 606 and 666, suggest to me that the two Satans corroborate one another (cross referencing), based on the number pattern 6, accompanied with similar narratives. And that is how you cross-reference narratives from different cultures. This is what scholars do when comparing narratives from different sources and cultures to see if there is a common origin; a collation of texts.

Quote:
All you can show is the book of Revelations, which you and I BOTH agree is not accurate. The only books you seem to have 100% faith in on this topic are the "older Hebrew texts" which you never cite specifically.



Where are you getting this from? I never said I put 100 percent faith in any text. I am on record stating all of these texts are fallible because the authors to me are not without error or sin.


Quote:
Sorry but "Critical analysis" is not someone's opinion despite you citing the very first link you find on a Google search after entering the phrase 'critical analysis'. However, even going by that source you chose to cite, if you continue reading the material all the way through, it states:


"Even though as a writer you set the standards, you should be open-minded, well informed, and fair. You can express your opinions, but you should also back them up with evidence."



Dude, I am sharing my opinion. At no time did I advance my interpretations of text as fact. I support my opinion with texts, revelation, scripture etc. And still even the plain texts I present, I do so with interpretation. I am baffled at how you are misreading my statements.

I have said this countless times in the past, as long as the authors are not here to explain exactly what they mean, we, the reader, are left to our own interpretation of their writing.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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