Reconsider ........................
Reconsider ........................
Are you ignorant or a liar? Caino has often come against the gospel of Jesus Christ and especially against His work on the Cross. You too, skate around those terms. John 6 is nowhere compatible with your Urantia-propositions. As a reminder, they aren't given as the words of God either. They scriptures are.
"False charge" is the false charge here.
It still stands that the UB does agree with John 3:16, and it does so in an even more definitive way, since those who reject the offer of eternal life thru Jesus, actually suffer death, they
'perish' (they are distintegrated, they actually DIE, cease to exist as a living conscious personality). Therefore the UB holds to the 'conditional immortality' view on soul destiny. It rejects the traditional hell-fire concept of ECT (eternal conscious torment) which I challenge
here and elsewhere. If you do not accept the eternal life offered by God thru his Son (choosing eternal survival),...you will 'perish'. The options for soul destiny are eternal survival(life) or death.
How convenient (like ALL of your quote mines).
lain:
lain:
lain:
lain:
Just a matter of fact that many books/letters in the NT are pseudographical. The contention between Peter and Paul in Galatia was an indication of differences the original apostles had with Paul, then Paul goes further to proclaim "his own gospel" as a main player in pioneering 'Gentile Christianity' to the coming generations. One can 'dispensationalize' as they wish,...yet the differences between 'gospels' stand however one chooses to explain them.
MAD agrees with you. They aren't that many of them. I'm not disparaging them, but they would not support you here. I'll let them speak to this. For your and my conversation: :nono:
We've debated Paul in other threads, and he remains a controversial figure on many levels, mostly his anti-law views and issues of grace/works, dispensations, allegorical/metaphorical language, nature of resurrection issues, etc. His theology incorporates elements of Judaism, Greek philosophy, mystery religions, Gnosticism, synthesizing them. He had his own 'personal revelations'. Its also fair to say that Paul never thought his 'letters' were to be treated as the infallible 'word of God'(like books from the OT), since he openly shares his own opinions in them too, not to mention hes just a man like any other with
imperfections.
We too can receive 'revelation' by the Spirit of God who indwells us,
needing no intermediary in that respect. It just so happens that prophets, apostles, avatars, anointed ones, revealers, teachers are sent to us by divine providence.
You either build off the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ, or you stumble from Him.
That's your NT opinion.
If you read the papers, you'll see that Jesus is our
Creator-Son, Savior, Sovereign Lord and Planetary Prince,...since he is our Creator, he is in this sense our 'universe-father'('God'), but he is not The Universal Father of all, the First Source and Center, from which all Creator-Sons spring. There is a divine hierarchy. The UB goes into the 'hierarchy' in depth.
Being a Mormon, you never understood Who He was.
One could argue that 'doctrinally', but only on that level.
As to your assumption that you know my relationship with 'God', well that would be the height of presumption on your part, based on limited perception and distortion from what data-pool you happen to be fishing from at any moment in time. We can debate intellectual concepts of 'Christology' til the cows come home, this occupied centuries of church councils, splitting hairs over 'doctrine'. I'm quite familiar with the development of Christology within Christianity, and on an intellectual level most of it sits, but how such actually benefits one 'spiritually' is another story or application.
The same Unitarian/Trinitarian viewpoints exist within sects of Christendom today, so these intellectual concepts and philosophical perspectives still continue,
which shows the 'relative' nature of such. You couldn't prove a particular view is 'absolute' (beyond assumption), since only Deity itself is 'absolute' in the truest sense, as an independent, unchanging reality. - all else is relative, subject to translation/interpretation.
As a Urantia, you are stumbling further. For you, He IS the stone of stumbling you outright reject. He isn't just a good guru. He claimed to be God very God- YOUR God.
The UB is just one book among many other interesting religious works out there, and more will be forthcoming since there is
progressive revelation. I'm not a 'urantia' (whatever that is). If this world is known as 'Urantia' then we are all 'urantians', in that assigned context. Depends on one's choice of nomenclature.
We've already covered that Jesus as our 'Creator-Son' is 'God' to us,...but he is not The Universal Father. Creator-Sons are divine Sons who create universes in the evolving worlds of space-time, they originate out from The Universal Father who is the First Source and Center of all. To us, Jesus is our 'universe-father' as our Creator, of course. So in this sense Jesus is 'God', of course, as a Creator-Son, he
Bad for you: Peter and the other apostles accepted him.
I don't believe it fully,....Paul barely got out of Jerusalem alive most of the time, so he had to go out and preach 'his gospel' to Gentile audiences (remember Peter was the apostle originally preaching the gospel to gentiles). Peter and Paul had a major skirmish in Galatia, and for the most part Paul's anti-law gospel separated him from the original apostles of Jesus and the Jerusalem Community. Some Jewish followers of Jesus such as the Ebionites considered Paul an 'anti-christ' of sorts, since his gospel was so different, more pagan-gnostic in nature. I'm quite liberal on Paul, recognizing a complexity about him and his theology on different levels, and how it might differ from the pillars of the community at Jerusalem, led by James the Just, the Lord's brother. - remember they kept to much of the fundamental of Judaism, but for some innovations taught by Jesus. The UB holds to the seminal gospel of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus, based on the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of man, minus many of the Jewish customs and rituals. Part 4 in the UB fully covers this, in fact every year of Jesus life is chronicled.
See: The Paul Problem
This is a throw-over Mormon ploy. Get rid of it.
No its not,
there you go again assuming things again. LDS theology is very different from the UB, we've been thru that here, with proper article resources and even videos.
------------------------------
You are TRYING to love yourself the way you are.
I value who I am as a child of God. God is love. You're super-imposing some presumed concept or belief about 'original sin' and must buy the whole blood-sacrifice redemption remedy that comes as a 'salvation-assurance' with it.
Some don't buy the necessity of a 'blood-atonement' beyond it being 'conceptual' or 'theoritical',
since 'repentance' and 'inner transformation' of mind/spirit is what is essential. If a religious ritual or observance can assist in 'repentance' and 'living the truth', then so be it.
I hate sin inside of me. You and God should hate sin inside of me too!
You are speaking against the very nature of God to suggest He should love sin.
This is your own your belief about 'sin' and the theology loaded into it. You're bringing these terms up, not me. I don't get where on earth you see me suggesting God should love sin. :idunno: This is baffling (again, your own presuppositions based on your preconceived theology).
Your concept of Him, is nowhere the same as mine, either.
That's your perception, but a thorough reading of the first 5 papers, essential reading for anyone interested in the fundamental theology about God's being and nature, may perhaps change your mind. Index
here. The primary nature of 'God' in judeo-chrsitian theology is essentially the same as revealed in the UB, but the latter expands on God and the universe as a more expansive cosmsology, introducing some new terms and meanings, but the eternal values of religious ethic, morals and principles remain the same. Note the 'nature' of God is essentially the same as per classical theology. Side issues like whether this 'God' demands a blood-sacrifice to make an 'atonement' is another subject, which doesn't really affect the value of Jesus mission, apart from a religious belief about it. The value of Jesus bestowal of himself on the planet holds its significance as 'revealing' God to us, even more so as incarnating among us.
The UB is repackaged Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Eastern Mysticism. Ba'Hai is hardly different from the UB in that respect.
This again is your perception, however distorted that might be. The papers give descriptions of the world religions and their evolution, in relation to the 'epochal revelations' revealed in the papers. The papers approach religion universally and charts the human evolution of such religious teachings. Remember,....dispensational revelations came as 'epochal revelations' according to the papers.
See Paper 92 - 103 for the history of different religious traditions and their contributions to the planet.
Also a synopsis in Part 4 is given on the world religions, describing the religion of Jesus at the last paragraph
here.
I gather before jumping to pre-conclusions and assumptions you learn a bit more before making statements, or just admit these are your opinions, or what 'seems' to be. Further research and discovery may cause you to change your mind.
