Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:38 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:57 pm +0000
Posts: 103
I'm going to play devil's advocate to some degree here. I found this verse from the Bible used by opposers from a mainstream Christian perspective.

Galatians 1:8 (NRSV) states: But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

The Gospel meaning "good news" is the simple fact that Jesus died for your sins and if you accept that sacrifice, you will obtain salvation. To add: that also means your works will not help you obtain salvation. Your works are only an expression of that acceptance of Christ's sacrifice.

UB readers obviously don't believe that. We (myself included) don't believe Jesus was a blood sacrifice and instead focus on the things he actually taught. UB readers say that everyone should have their own spiritual experience. Once we get that experience we obtain a genuine desire to know God and then not only will we obtain salvation, but also express unconditional love to all humans. This is our gospel.

The part in the verse about an angel proclaiming a different gospel points to the sleeping subject narrative.

UB readers regularly challenge much that is in the Bible but at the same time the UB quotes the bible to confirm or clarify what the UB teaches. So with that in mind how do we answer this charge in Galatians 1:8 ?

My first answer would be to ignore Paul's authority (his road to Damascus experience is only for him alone) and state that we only focus on what Jesus himself taught. But if anyone were to do that, many readers who self identify themselves as Christian will be challenged on whether they are TRUE Christians.

Let me be clear: I don't consider myself Christian. This is not skepticism but rather a question over how to answer this charge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 104
Hi William - regarding
Quote:
"the good news" being the simple fact that Jesus died for your sins and if you accept that sacrifice, you will obtain salvation...
Makes me wonder; before Jesus died, before folks had time to wonder and worry about his death, Jesus had spent years revealing the real "good news". Since this has nothing to do with the death of Jesus, how did Paul get things so mixed up?

I once raised something like this to two young trainee pastors: before Jesus died, what was the good news he was revealing? They both seem confused, and curious.

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4054
Interesting....and so ironic. For Paul had already changed the "Gospel"! The true Jesusonian Gospel is clearly stated in the Four Gospels!! It is and was no secret or mystery. It is preached everywhere everyday. Jesus preached our relationship with God is parent and child which results in the family of all creation. God is love. God loves his children and seeks them out like the good shepherd and always rejoices for the lost sheep and the prodigal son.

The red letter Bible prominently displays the original gospel. And then Paul so abruptly changes it. From the message OF the Master to the doctrines ABOUT him. Paul did that. Westernized and paganized. Lots of Christians know it.

Now the verse you post is not actually about the future. At the time of this letter, the Galatians had already been entertaining a preacher who did not subscribe to or proclaim Paulinian doctrine and Paul is warning them against his competition, who may very well have been teaching the true gospel.

6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

In any case Paul would stop the Spirit of Truth if he would stop the true Gospel. And you are wrong William if you think Paul gave voice to the original or first Gospel and Good News. Jesus did that. We've had that record for 2000 years and his voice within ever since. It is that first Gospel, the original, that is within the NT, that should be shared with Christians and they should acknowledge the Gospel of Jesus trumps and supercedes all doctrines and creeds which contradict that. Peace.

Bradly. 8)


Last edited by fanofVan on Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:15 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 1062
Location: Denver CO
Quote:
The red letter Bible prominently displays the original gospel. And then Paul so abruptly changes it. From the message OF the Master to the doctrines ABOUT him. Paul did that. Westernized and paganized. Lots of Christians know it.

Now the verse you post is not actually about the future. At the time of this letter, the Galatians had already been entertaining a preacher who did not subscribe to or proclaim Paulinian doctrine and Paul is warning them against his competition, who may very well have been teaching the true gospel.


I'd like to share a piece written by David Kantor recently that might have some bearing on this topic, or lend some interest. It contrasts Paul with Jesus and the gospels they preached.

Quote:
-----Jesus vs. Paul------

What we know as Christianity today—as well as most of the New Testament—is based almost exclusively on the experience of Paul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road with "the risen and glorified Christ."

But Paul never knew the human Jesus, God incarnate living daily life as a mortal man. Paul never worked up a sweat with Jesus, hauling in heavy fishing nets from the Sea of Galilee. He never observed Jesus chatting up vendors in the produce market in Capernaum. Paul never knew about Jesus' early struggles as the eldest son in a working-class family making its way in the world. He never sat with Jesus and the apostles around a campfire late into the night listening to the Master talk about his kingdom—a spiritual civilization which pervades our universe. Paul essentially missed the most fundamental element of revelation in the Incarnation—the observation of God living life as a human being in the midst of daily life.

Interestingly, Paul had serious conflicts in his relationships with key people who had spent time with the human Jesus—early Christian leaders who objected to Paul's teachings. Among them were the Lord's brother James, Peter, Barnabas, and John Mark. Neither of the two men most influential in the spread of Paul's teachings—Luke and Marcion—had any experience with the human Jesus. Paul never even read the Gospels—he was dead before they were written. The book of Acts as well as John's Gospel weren't written until some twenty-five to thirty years after the death of Paul.

It's helpful to contrast the teachings of Paul with those of Jesus:

Jesus founded the religion of personal experience in doing the will of God and serving the brotherhood of man; Paul founded a religion in which the glorified Jesus became the object of worship and the brotherhood consisted of fellow believers in the divine Christ.

Jesus focused on sharing the love of God in the service of humanity; Paul focused on personal salvation for the individual, a Hellenist preoccupation at the time.

Jesus taught salvation was freely available from God "who knows how to give his children what they need." For Paul, there needed to be a ritual transaction--Christ had to be "made sin" and "handed over for our transgressions."

Jesus taught salvation came by faith; Paul taught that salvation came through the Messiah's death.

Jesus taught that sin was deliberate disloyalty to God. Paul taught that sin was an inescapable element of human nature.

For Jesus, faith is trust in the Father's watch care and guidance. For Paul, faith is belief that Christ died for our sins.

Jesus proclaimed salvation as a gift from God freely available to each individual; Paul proclaimed that Jesus had to purchase salvation for us from God.

Jesus described man's relationship to God as that of a child and its loving parent; Paul described it as that of a criminal to a judge.

For Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was a present reality, here and now; for Paul the kingdom was a future event associated with a second coming and a judgment.

Jesus taught that life should be lived in the security of the Father's love with the faith of a child in its parents; Paul taught that life is lived struggling between forces of good and evil, each attempting to control us.

***The coming reformation will shake the very foundations of Christianity because it will finally remove Paul's obscuring (and conceptually obsolete) metaphysics of death and expose the full revelation of life which Jesus lived and taught during his mortal sojourn on earth as the Son of Man and the Son of God.***


maryjo


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 1166
Location: Nanticoke NY
William S. wrote:
Galatians 1:8 (NRSV) states: But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!


The tradition of Christianity comes from the traditions Jesus preserved within various traditions of Mesopotamia. In the book of Enoch, that Jesus read, there is written during the latter times of Adam "man ought to live as the angels live." And therefore when Paul states "we or an angel", he is attempting to speak directly from that tradition.

So, he did not say "I will curse them", but rather 'let that one be accursed'. The issue is the teaching of God's will. Whether you are Christian, every man has his personal standard of wisdom, in what he would hope to teach his own child/children. One cannot simply teach God's wisdom, or how to do God's will, but like Jesus one ought to realise God's will and procure the fruits of wisdom therefrom. If you knew, if you had received mindal revelation in a particular moment, "what might be good", yes, but how you deliver that into experience, how you affirm when others have spoken from the truth. Acting as a cosmic citizen even within one's territory and neighbourhood, teaching or living by an acceptible means of life, legally true within every account.

It means that for adults who have set a higher standard of human conduct amongst themselves, within themself each, probably then those men would rather suffer kharma (universe consequence, also relationship consequence) would rather be cursed anyway, then to have allowed someone with the potential to realise their creation as a Paradise citizen, a sentient Being, to have gone down the finitudes of the cosmos, without the correspondence of their fused self within the central universes.


This isn't so important for Christianity or Christians in general, as it was for Paul, whose service to God began shortly after the Pentecostal spirit was outpoured "upon all flesh". He was one of the first citizens to realise the new perspective of duty, the duty of seraph unto an individual human mind. The purpose was that such an angel assists the endeavors of the one who seeks finality, who seeks in this moment to do the will of the Paradise Father. They, who were proven loyal and once were sworn to serve Michael/Jesus, were required by Jesus' decision to assist man, the sons of men, to help man act by faith, or "in accordance with that one's indwelling Adjuster", since they see that plainly, they see the needs of the human heart so palpably. They do everything possible to help every sentient Being realise the potentials that already exist for them eternally. Paul probably did not intend to curse anyone, but rather indicates a sense of shame or indignation, that any spiritual leader would of course do everything in his capacity to bring the ultimate riches of God's bestowal, to share the potential of eternal life with as many Beings as possible, in the highest quality of existence that they could have had.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4054
The Lord's Prayer and Communion are Christian traditions the Master began and baptism was a Jewish tradition long before Christianity's adoption. But original sin and atonement and hell and Armageddon and virgin birth and so much Roman paganization and Mithraisms, etc. are Christian traditions that have nothing at all to do with Jesus or his Gospel.

And when was Paul's conversion? References please.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:57 pm +0000
Posts: 103
Those were some strong points raised in what Maryjo quoted from David Kantor.

The Last Supper (I haven't read that paper yet by the way) certainly is problematic from the UB reader perspective however because unlike the Epistles, that is actually in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with Jesus talking.

There are many names associated with the event: the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, Communion and the Sacrament. I just like to call it the bread and wine ceremony because when I say Communion, people confuse it with Catholic tradition when actually I come from a Protestant background.

Anyway, the bread and wine ceremony especially with the wine certainly suggests the sacrifice of Jesus for humanity, when we like to think of Jesus as a teacher and not a sacrifice. It's worth mentioning that it happened BEFORE the Crucifixion, but still... "drink this wine in remembrance of my blood"

Oh and by the way, all this is nothing against churchgoers. The UB is only for those who wish to broaden their horizons for their spiritual path. Those mainstream Christians in the pews can know God in their own way. The reason for my original question is if we were to find ourselves in the position of being asked what we believe personally and the person asking insists in which we should be ready with an honest answer.

It would also be useful to be prepared in the extremely unlikely chance we are confronted with individuals like Ray Comfort or Steven Anderson (google them if you don't know them).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4054
Since you have not yet read about it:

5. Establishing the Remembrance Supper

179:5.1 (1941.6) As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the “cup of blessing,” he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: “Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father’s eternal kingdom.”

179:5.2 (1942.1) The apostles all sensed that something out of the ordinary was transpiring as they drank of this cup of blessing in profound reverence and perfect silence. The old Passover commemorated the emergence of their fathers from a state of racial slavery into individual freedom; now the Master was instituting a new remembrance supper as a symbol of the new dispensation wherein the enslaved individual emerges from the bondage of ceremonialism and selfishness into the spiritual joy of the brotherhood and fellowship of the liberated faith sons of the living God.

179:5.3 (1942.2) When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: “Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life.” When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down.

179:5.4 (1942.3) In instituting this remembrance supper, the Master, as was always his habit, resorted to parables and symbols. He employed symbols because he wanted to teach certain great spiritual truths in such a manner as to make it difficult for his successors to attach precise interpretations and definite meanings to his words. In this way he sought to prevent successive generations from crystallizing his teaching and binding down his spiritual meanings by the dead chains of tradition and dogma. In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual’s concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form; neither did he desire to limit the believer’s spiritual imagination by formally cramping it. He rather sought to set man’s reborn soul free upon the joyous wings of a new and living spiritual liberty.

179:5.5 (1942.4) Notwithstanding the Master’s effort thus to establish this new sacrament of the remembrance, those who followed after him in the intervening centuries saw to it that his express desire was effectively thwarted in that his simple spiritual symbolism of that last night in the flesh has been reduced to precise interpretations and subjected to the almost mathematical precision of a set formula. Of all Jesus’ teachings none have become more tradition-standardized.

179:5.6 (1942.5) This supper of remembrance, when it is partaken of by those who are Son-believing and God-knowing, does not need to have associated with its symbolism any of man’s puerile misinterpretations regarding the meaning of the divine presence, for upon all such occasions the Master is really present. The remembrance supper is the believer’s symbolic rendezvous with Michael. When you become thus spirit-conscious, the Son is actually present, and his spirit fraternizes with the indwelling fragment of his Father.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4054
The UB has much to say about "theology":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

And "doctrine":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

"doctrines":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

"creeds":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

"dogma":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

"dogmas":

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/se ... &op=Search

Many believers are more comfortable and less plagued by uncertainty and confusion within the sheltering familiarity of theologies, creeds, doctrines, and dogmas. The UB teaches that all beliefs which result in faith and faith assurance thusly have meaning and value and are not to be harshly judged or dismissed by more rigorous thinkers and seekers of truth. It is not what we know or believe that brings us to the other shore.

As William points out above.

:wink: :biggrin: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


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