Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:58 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3660
I am not sure how we got down this rabbit hole of Judaic studies and the challenge to defend and justify another's religious faith or belief or its particular contrast to the Papers....but it has nothing to do with the question asked or topic of the thread I can discern. It's a distraction and unwelcome tangent in my opinion. But whatever......

Actually Cal, Jesus did indeed prevent a stoning or acted directly to shame those accusers and punishers who brought a woman to him for that purpose to entrap him.

3. The Woman Taken in Adultery (1792.5) 162:3.1-5

The Mansion worlds have no parallel in any religion I know of....although the word mansion is used in the bible where Jesus is quoted as saying, In my Father's house are many mansions.....

(341.7) 30:4.17 Sometimes all training worlds of mortal residence are called universe “mansions,” and it was to such spheres that Jesus alluded when he said: “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” From here on, within a given group of spheres like the mansion worlds, ascenders will progress individually from one sphere to another and from one phase of life to another, but they will always advance from one stage of universe study to another in class formation.

I wonder what any might have to say about "The Triune Yet Unitary Nature of G-d"?

Or perhaps we might all share our own preconceptions and misconceptions upon becoming a new student of the UB? And, perhaps, those we might cling to still in our prejudice? Who among us shall throw that first stone? (something Jesus never actually said...or not aloud anyway - see the story of the woman taken in adultery above)

:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
fanofVan wrote:
I am not sure how we got down this rabbit hole of Judaic studies and the challenge to defend and justify another's religious faith or belief or its particular contrast to the Papers....but it has nothing to do with the question asked or topic of the thread I can discern. It's a distraction and unwelcome tangent in my opinion. But whatever......

Actually Cal, Jesus did indeed prevent a stoning or acted directly to shame those accusers and punishers who brought a woman to him for that purpose to entrap him.

3. The Woman Taken in Adultery (1792.5) 162:3.1-5

The Mansion worlds have no parallel in any religion I know of....although the word mansion is used in the bible where Jesus is quoted as saying, In my Father's house are many mansions.....

(341.7) 30:4.17 Sometimes all training worlds of mortal residence are called universe “mansions,” and it was to such spheres that Jesus alluded when he said: “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” From here on, within a given group of spheres like the mansion worlds, ascenders will progress individually from one sphere to another and from one phase of life to another, but they will always advance from one stage of universe study to another in class formation.

I wonder what any might have to say about "The Triune Yet Unitary Nature of G-d"?

Or perhaps we might all share our own preconceptions and misconceptions upon becoming a new student of the UB? And, perhaps, those we might cling to still in our prejudice? Who among us shall throw that first stone? (something Jesus never actually said...or not aloud anyway - see the story of the woman taken in adultery above)

:wink:

fanofVan: you present above "Actually Cal, Jesus did indeed prevent a stoning or acted directly to shame those accusers and punishers who brought a woman to him for that purpose to entrap him." Isn't that what I presented, because in your reply, I presume that you think the opposite?
Quote:
[. . .]Okay, well was this not a punishment which Jesus prevented, or frowned against, or was this just a fallacy in the Old Testament, where stoning was a punishment for many offences. [. . .]

How do you read otherwise, in what I wrote above? I'm making this assumption because, if you agreed with what I said, you would not have commented on it?

Nevertheless, my query to "Yaakov001" is in response to this topic, where I asked him what sect of Judaism he followed, whereby, if one would study various sects of Judaic belief, specifically regarding "Sephirot", "meaning emanations, are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof (The Infinite) reveals himself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms (Seder hishtalshelus). The term is alternatively transliterated into English as Sefirot/Sefiroth, singular Sephirah/Sefirah etc.", there are several, interpretations which can be configured as multiple godheads, based on the structure of "Sephirot", where the Urantia Book as implied in its context, an emulation based on this structure.

Also, I have read most all of "Yaakov001's" presentations on this forum and have noted that although he is interested in the UB, he does have much reservation as to its accuracy, regarding "Hebrew history", specifically when stating "the reinterpretation of Hebrew history doesn't wash", whereby I challenged his reference that the "Torah" cannot be argued, therefore, any mention in the UB which would direct attention from the "Torah" would be inadmissible, as a subject, which could be argued or debated.

Yet if Yaakov, is interested in the content of the Urantia Book, and is looking for various parallels to Judaism, of various studies, I question some of his query, where it seems there is no one here, who can confront his "intellectual rigour" which is definitely embedded in his Judaic studies. Where, I merely present an "intellectual" challenge and would stand aside should any one present a viable argument for the Urantia Book, and its content. Where presenting quotes, as written, would not satisfy Yaakov, since he can read for himself. It is what is held between the lines of text, which may interest him more, because I believe that he can see what I see in the text of the UB.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Judaism's concepts of the Afterlife are so very vague (deliberately) that believing in the Mansion Worlds presents very little problem at all.

Asking what "branch" of Judaism I'm in is a rather irrelevant question, is it not? I consider myself to be rather post-denominational, to be honest, and it doesn't matter. Jews are not like Christians. We tend to go to the shul that is closest to us when not in our own neighbourhoods, to be honest. I call myself a traditional Jew, and that could mean anything from Chasidic to a Classical Reform Jew. And to be honest, I take a little from everything including even some elements of Kaplanian thought. Modern day Judaism is developing past the divisions of past centuries. The only ones who even care tend to be the most insular of the Ultra-Orthodox, and even they are starting to show cracks in the so-called wall of solidarity, if you will.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3660
Cal - need new specs or start reading slower....my eyes jumbled the words....my bad.

:roll: :lol: :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3660
[quote="Yaakov001 But the book has become important to me in its own way, and at this point, I wouldn't give it up for all its considerable weight in gold.[/quote]

I have noted a true progression of this appreciation by our friend and fellow reader Yaakov, and find it important to note such progression when considering past and initial posts by any....myself included. Let us be patient with one another and especially those who attend here with a new found curiosity and growing appreciation for the study of that which we share here together. Peace.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
Yaakov001 wrote:
Judaism's concepts of the Afterlife are so very vague (deliberately) that believing in the Mansion Worlds presents very little problem at all.

Asking what "branch" of Judaism I'm in is a rather irrelevant question, is it not? I consider myself to be rather post-denominational, to be honest, and it doesn't matter. Jews are not like Christians. We tend to go to the shul that is closest to us when not in our own neighbourhoods, to be honest. I call myself a traditional Jew, and that could mean anything from Chasidic to a Classical Reform Jew. And to be honest, I take a little from everything including even some elements of Kaplanian thought. Modern day Judaism is developing past the divisions of past centuries. The only ones who even care tend to be the most insular of the Ultra-Orthodox, and even they are starting to show cracks in the so-called wall of solidarity, if you will.

Thanks for your response Yaakov, it does lend a better light as to the sum of your interests and beliefs. Whereby it would open up the topic more so as I thought.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
fanofVan wrote:
Cal - need new specs or start reading slower....my eyes jumbled the words....my bad.

:roll: :lol: :wink:

Not a problem, your passion is leading you on, therefore you can feel that which is within.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Now, granted, Kaplan took things to an extreme, in some of his works even appearing to come across as rejecting a personal Deity, and that is a bit far for me. However, his idea, elucidated in his book from 1934 called "Judaism as a Civilization" (note the American spelling), that Judaism was far more than just a religion, was spot on in my opinion. He considered Judaism to be the sum civilisation of the Jewish People. Although religion was a very large part (and certainly I would say the largest part) of that civilisation, it was not by any means the only part. Just as with any civilisation, we have our own cultures and folkways peculiar to us, and some that vary within the group. As an Ashkenazi Jew, I have Yiddish as a common language (which I don't speak, although I can cuss in it quite well), I tend to eat certain types of food, we have certain customs on the holidays that we don't share with other Jews (such as the Sephardim, or the Yemeni Jews, or the Ethiopic Jews, or what-have-you), etc. On the other hand, they are part of the broader civilisation known as Judaism because we all share certain customs irrespective of our local traditions.

My point in all this is to say that Judaism and the Jewish People are more than a religion by far. As a result, our religion tends to be a bit less command oriented then many others. In Roman Catholicism, for example, at least theoretically (although in the USA often not in practice), you either STFU and do what you are told or you go bye-bye. Islam is definitely that way, at least within the various sects thereof, and in many cases, they are so to the point of violence, with ISIS being a perfect example of one group of Sunnis making an example out of others who don't follow Sharia the way ISIS thinks they should.

As far as to how this relates to the UB, well, of course, that is a very fair question. Because Judaism is not as command oriented, we can accept elements of non-Jewish thought, provided they do not conflict with the teachings of the Torah. The Afterlife is, frankly, not discussed in the Torah. It is alluded to somewhat in the Prophets, but even there its basically discussed in terms of being a blessed place, and that is about it. Mostly, what is discussed is Sheol, in the Writings, which isn't really nice at all, but is merely a place wherein the dead go and rest, and feel nothing at all. Judaism believes that the Resurrection will cause these souls to resurrect and enter Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) otherwise called Paradise). Personally, I kind of think that Sheol, as such, is the sleep we get on the way to the Mansion Worlds, and in between worlds each time we move between them. I still have to read more about the Afterlife in the UB, of course. I am just learning about it, as you can see.

But I know some Jews who don't believe in an Afterlife at all. Now, is this wrong? I certainly believe it is. But I am not in a position to question another man's belief. I don't want my own questioned, so I am going to keep my pie-hole firmly closed. And that is what it comes down to. Politeness. We do like to engage in Pilpul, though. The fine art of debate and argumentation. Its great fun. But with unfailing courtesy, of course.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
Yaakov001 wrote:
[. . .]
From reading the Forward, the paragraphs above noted, I note that the Father was initially Infinite. That made him all things EXCEPT one. That one is Finite! In other words, by having the quality of Infinity, he was lacking the quality of Finiteness. And so he created the Eternal Son, and together they created the Eternal Spirit. At the same time, there was never a moment when G-d the Eternal Father was NOT the father of the Son and with the Son of the Spirit.

Now, initially, this doesn't make much sense, but G-d the Father knew, from all time dating back, that he would be creating the Son, and with him, the Spirit. So in that sense he is Father to the Son eternally.

The question is one that wrestles with the difference between eternity, co-eternity, and "in the beginning". Clearly, the universe had a beginning.
[. . .]

Personally, Yaakov, I believe that the reference of "universe of universes" in the Urantia Book, defines much in regards to whether a "universe" or that within it, has a beginning. Although, the "universe" used as a master pattern to create the "Universes" may indicate that there was an old one verses new ones, nevertheless whether the original master pattern universe was created or evolved to a specific point would be another subject, which could only be incorporated from within the UB text, and does not appear to be present other than by implication.

The personal evaluation is that the Father, in order to create the Son, would first require a counter reflection of Him-self, which would be the Holy Spirit, and if one where to apply the three concentric circles, as the inner being the Father and the outer being the Spirit (Mother), then the middle would be a reflection back as the Son. This would only apply in a physics aspect of a material universe where an infinite space would be required in order to create matter of any kind. Therefore, the number one is encompassed by a zero, which would allow the eternal number one to be restrained or able to reflect Himself as any other Beings. However, there is the notable factor in the creation story of Adam, where the feminine form was created from Adam, however various Biblical and non-Biblical references indicate that both forms where created separately, whereby if one would interpret the trinity as three separate components, there would be an imbalance to any equation if there were not a forth factor to Creation.

This might imply that the Father split Himself and as Mother sacrificed Herself to be able to create a third (in reference to an egg, where the shell protects the yoke and the egg white) or which would be more appropriate to create another like the Father, who would require a compound of two, which is where the male and female factors come into play, and that it is this dual factor of the Father/Mother whom is required to unit both Father and Mother back together, whereby the Supreme would come into play as the goal in unification or fusion.

Even if one takes the number seven, which is presented foremost in the UB, having components of three (trinity) where does the four, come into play, if not to represent a fourth dimension which would represent "time". Therefore, if the trinity is one factor representing a beginning, past and present, then "time" would represent a future, which would and could represent an end, where if something has a beginning it also can and must have an ending, as ware as a plan would go.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Caligastia wrote:
Yaakov001 wrote:
[. . .]
From reading the Forward, the paragraphs above noted, I note that the Father was initially Infinite. That made him all things EXCEPT one. That one is Finite! In other words, by having the quality of Infinity, he was lacking the quality of Finiteness. And so he created the Eternal Son, and together they created the Eternal Spirit. At the same time, there was never a moment when G-d the Eternal Father was NOT the father of the Son and with the Son of the Spirit.

Now, initially, this doesn't make much sense, but G-d the Father knew, from all time dating back, that he would be creating the Son, and with him, the Spirit. So in that sense he is Father to the Son eternally.

The question is one that wrestles with the difference between eternity, co-eternity, and "in the beginning". Clearly, the universe had a beginning.
[. . .]

Personally, Yaakov, I believe that the reference of "universe of universes" in the Urantia Book, defines much in regards to whether a "universe" or that within it, has a beginning. Although, the "universe" used as a master pattern to create the "Universes" may indicate that there was an old one verses new ones, nevertheless whether the original master pattern universe was created or evolved to a specific point would be another subject, which could only be incorporated from within the UB text, and does not appear to be present other than by implication.

The personal evaluation is that the Father, in order to create the Son, would first require a counter reflection of Him-self, which would be the Holy Spirit, and if one where to apply the three concentric circles, as the inner being the Father and the outer being the Spirit (Mother), then the middle would be a reflection back as the Son. This would only apply in a physics aspect of a material universe where an infinite space would be required in order to create matter of any kind. Therefore, the number one is encompassed by a zero, which would allow the eternal number one to be restrained or able to reflect Himself as any other Beings. However, there is the notable factor in the creation story of Adam, where the feminine form was created from Adam, however various Biblical and non-Biblical references indicate that both forms where created separately, whereby if one would interpret the trinity as three separate components, there would be an imbalance to any equation if there were not a forth factor to Creation.

This might imply that the Father split Himself and as Mother sacrificed Herself to be able to create a third (in reference to an egg, where the shell protects the yoke and the egg white) or which would be more appropriate to create another like the Father, who would require a compound of two, which is where the male and female factors come into play, and that it is this dual factor of the Father/Mother whom is required to unit both Father and Mother back together, whereby the Supreme would come into play as the goal in unification or fusion.

Even if one takes the number seven, which is presented foremost in the UB, having components of three (trinity) where does the four, come into play, if not to represent a fourth dimension which would represent "time". Therefore, if the trinity is one factor representing a beginning, past and present, then "time" would represent a future, which would and could represent an end, where if something has a beginning it also can and must have an ending, as ware as a plan would go.


I find your response, CALIGASTIA, to be quite interesting, and worthier of deeper study than I am capable of at the moment. You are obviously far more experienced a reader than I am of the Urantia Book. Although I am well aware of basic theology of the text, an in-depth study will take much more time and effort. I am personally inclined to believe that the Universe (used in its modern sense of the entire aggregation of all G-d's Creation) is an immensely well organised place. Patterns within patterns of logical thought, all organised by G-d himself. Now, what this means in terms of increasing entropy, I am not certain, but there you are. I am aware, of course, that the UB rejects the concept of increasing entropy. I am not sure what to think of that. There is more for me to learn, this much is clear.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
Yaakov001 wrote:
[. . .] Although I am well aware of basic theology of the text, an in-depth study will take much more time and effort. I am personally inclined to believe that the Universe (used in its modern sense of the entire aggregation of all G-d's Creation) is an immensely well organised place. Patterns within patterns of logical thought, all organised by G-d himself. [. . .]

AS I have mentioned in other areas of this forum, there are instructions held within the Urantia Book which many do not see or us. One of the formidable one, is that information to be found in the UB, can result from a path taken "inward and upward" where from outside of the UB, as to reference, then from lower points of the UB, or various subject matter, move upward to the sections, or first papers of the UB. Notwithstanding that the "Foreword", as a glossary, is also an end to the means, but in order to find "The Universal Father", in Paper One, one may need to start else ware in the UB even if it is considered as being outside of the box, so to speak. Fore many think that a box or cube, has only six sides, but they forget that "inside" is also considered as a side, where it also have six sides, and from inside, has a seventh side, the "outside". I present the following UB quotes as an analogy:
Quote:
(215.2) 19:1.5 For example: The human mind would ordinarily crave to approach the cosmic philosophy portrayed in these revelations by proceeding from the simple and the finite to the complex and the infinite, from human origins to divine destinies. But that path does not lead to spiritual wisdom. Such a procedure is the easiest path to a certain form of genetic knowledge, but at best it can only reveal man’s origin; it reveals little or nothing about his divine destiny.

(215.3) 19:1.6 Even in the study of man’s biologic evolution on Urantia, there are grave objections to the exclusive historic approach to his present-day status and his current problems. The true perspective of any reality problem — human or divine, terrestrial or cosmic — can be had only by the full and unprejudiced study and correlation of three phases of universe reality: origin, history, and destiny. The proper understanding of these three experiential realities affords the basis for a wise estimate of the current status.

(215.4) 19:1.7 When the human mind undertakes to follow the philosophic technique of starting from the lower to approach the higher, whether in biology or theology, it is always in danger of committing four errors of reasoning:

(215.5) 19:1.8 1. It may utterly fail to perceive the final and completed evolutionary goal of either personal attainment or cosmic destiny.

(215.6) 19:1.9 2. It may commit the supreme philosophical blunder by oversimplifying cosmic evolutionary (experiential) reality, thus leading to the distortion of facts, to the perversion of truth, and to the misconception of destinies.

(215.7) 19:1.10 3. The study of causation is the perusal of history. But the knowledge of how a being becomes does not necessarily provide an intelligent understanding of the present status and true character of such a being.

(215.8) 19:1.11 4. History alone fails adequately to reveal future development — destiny. Finite origins are helpful, but only divine causes reveal final effects. Eternal ends are not shown in time beginnings. The present can be truly interpreted only in the light of the correlated past and future.

(215.9) 19:1.12 Therefore, because of these and for still other reasons, do we employ the technique of approaching man and his planetary problems by embarkation on the time-space journey from the infinite, eternal, and divine Paradise Source and Center of all personality reality and all cosmic existence.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 940
Yaakov001 wrote:

You are obviously far more experienced a reader than I am of the Urantia Book.



actually anyone who has studied the papers that cover this material would never posit the things he does....caveat emptor


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 am +0000
Posts: 282
Makalu wrote:
Yaakov001 wrote:

You are obviously far more experienced a reader than I am of the Urantia Book.



actually anyone who has studied the papers that cover this material would never posit the things he does....caveat emptor


I'm not sure whether you are speaking about me, or about the person I was addressing. It would appear at first blush you were speaking about me. In either case, such unfriendliness is hardly necessary. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 940
no i wasnt speaking about you...if someone posts things that do not jive at all with what the urantia papers say and another seems to mistakenly believe the post was based on knowledge of the urantia book and it makes me look unfriendly for pointing it out then so be it <shrugs>


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
Makalu wrote:
actually anyone who has studied the papers that cover this material would never posit the things he does....caveat emptor

Actually, "Makalu", I'm not selling anything, so if you are in the market where a buyer must be aware, then I welcome your opinion with supportive Urantia Book narration. Do you have any specific statements which you would like to discus as to any opinion which you do not agree?
Therefore, it would seem that "anyone who has studied the papers that cover this material", would indicate that you have studied this "material" in depth whereby I welcome your thoughts on this and other subjects which may reference your own opinion(s) based on your studies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group