- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ May 19 2013,13:40) Quote (Colter @ May 19 2013,13:33) Quote (Ed J @ May 19 2013,13:04) Hi Colter, How do you define the word “Jealousy” if it is not a concern for what belongs to you?
God bless
Ed J
Emotionally insecure.God is Love “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast”
Colter
Hi Colter,So Jealousy means emotionally insecure?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes, emotionally secure people do not get jealous. You will never observe an occasion where Jesus was jealous of someone, maybe jealous for people who lived in ignorance but never jealous of another.Colter
Hi Colter, sorry I meant to ask this question in this thread.
What do you call a concern for what belongs to you if not Jealousy?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Colter,
People argue over misconceptions all the time, that's why it's good
to define the words we use. And here are the definitions I use…Jealousy: is a concern for what belongs to you
Envy: is a concern for what belongs to othersJealously is a good emotion, one does not need to be insecure to experience this emotion.
Do you believe all emotions are bad? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 19 2013,14:13) Hi Colter, People argue over misconceptions all the time, that's why it's good
to define the words we use. And here are the definitions I use…Jealousy: is a concern for what belongs to you
Envy: is a concern for what belongs to othersJealously is a good emotion, one does not need to be insecure to experience this emotion.
Do you believe all emotions are bad? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The answer to your question is no.Emotions can be healthy and positive such as love and forgiveness or negative and destructive such as jealousy, anger and hatred.
Immature man thinks that God would react like man would react.
God is perfect, he is not jealous of other Gods that don't exist.
God challenges us to become perfect in self control as he is.Colter
Hi Colter,
Jealousy is a powerful emotion, one that affords those you love protection – do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,02:53) Hi Colter, Jealousy is a powerful emotion, one that affords those you love protection – do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, I don't agree, I think Love is greater. I think jealousy is about the one who is jealous, not the focus. It's like a toxic cocktail of fear-pride-anger-revenge-possessiveness-self doubt-low self image all mixed together.Colter
Quote (Colter @ May 20 2013,04:06) Quote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,02:53) Hi Colter, Jealousy is a powerful emotion, one that affords those you love protection – do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, I don't agree, I think Love is greater. I think jealousy is about the one who is jealous, not the focus. It's like a toxic cocktail
of fear-pride-anger-revenge-possessiveness-self doubt-low self image all mixed together.Colter
Hi Colter,Thanks for finally defining your definition of Jealousy,
but obviously that definition is not shared by others.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,04:14) Quote (Colter @ May 20 2013,04:06) Quote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,02:53) Hi Colter, Jealousy is a powerful emotion, one that affords those you love protection – do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, I don't agree, I think Love is greater. I think jealousy is about the one who is jealous, not the focus. It's like a toxic cocktail
of fear-pride-anger-revenge-possessiveness-self doubt-low self image all mixed together.Colter
Hi Colter,Thanks for finally defining your definition of Jealousy,
but obviously that definition is not shared by others.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,I did define it from the first time you asked me, but you have this unhealthy controlling sort of manipulation, like an interrogation. I answered you but you just ask the same question again is if you didn't get the answer you want. Do you use that in your ministry?
God didn't write the Bible, holy men did, so they characterize God as thinking like and emotional man would think. That's why other areas of the Bible have God getting frustrated that he had even created man, intolerant, angry, genocidal, killing children and women.
Those are old worn out stories, is it any wonder that the Jews hated Jesus for being so kind, friendly and in control?
The God of the OT is one fashioned in mans own image.
Colter
Quote (Colter @ May 30 2013,23:03) Quote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,04:14) Quote (Colter @ May 20 2013,04:06) Quote (Ed J @ May 20 2013,02:53) Hi Colter, Jealousy is a powerful emotion, one that affords those you love protection – do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, I don't agree, I think Love is greater. I think jealousy is about the one who is jealous, not the focus. It's like a toxic cocktail
of fear-pride-anger-revenge-possessiveness-self doubt-low self image all mixed together.Colter
Hi Colter,Thanks for finally defining your definition of Jealousy,
but obviously that definition is not shared by others.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,I did define it from the first time you asked me
Colter
Yea, show me where?Quote (Colter @ May 30 2013,23:03) Hi Ed, God didn't write the Bible, holy men did, so they characterize God as thinking like and emotional man would think.
That's why other areas of the Bible have God getting frustrated that he had even created man, intolerant, angry, genocidal, killing children and women.Colter
Hi Colter,Well that point certainly has merit, but certainly not with the Prophets of God or the Apostles of Christ.
Here is one such example:
“Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error;” (2 Sam 6:6-7)GOD told them how to “safely” handle the ark – with wooden staves (see Exodus 25:13-15),
but Uzzah did not follow GOD's instructions, and he touched The Ark with his bear hands.Nicole Tesla surmised that the Ark acted like a giant capacitor,
capable of discharging large amounts of energy at a moment.What does the UB say about the Ark?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,07:39) Quote (Colter @ May 30 2013,23:03) Hi Ed, God didn't write the Bible, holy men did, so they characterize God as thinking like and emotional man would think.
That's why other areas of the Bible have God getting frustrated that he had even created man, intolerant, angry, genocidal, killing children and women.Colter
Hi Colter,Well that point certainly has merit, but certainly not with the Prophets of God or the Apostles of Christ.
Here is one such example:
“Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error;” (2 Sam 6:6-7)GOD told them how to “safely” handle the ark – with wooden staves (see Exodus 25:13-15),
but Uzzah did not follow GOD's instructions, and he touched The Ark with his bear hands.Nicole Tesla surmised that the Ark acted like a giant capacitor,
capable of discharging large amounts of energy at a moment.What does the UB say about the Ark?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am now answering your question about the “ark” of the covenant and what the UB says about it.Generally, the educated priest class was/is wiser than the average believer therefor these shamans have always sought to manipulate the fears and superstitious awe of the common man for the sake of maintaining order…..for their own good of coarse.
Moses was far advanced for his time, being a reformer and leader, he was wise enough to realize that, while he sought to eliminate the making of graven images, golden calves and such, he still needed to tweak the curiosity of mystery and power in a relic such as the ark. The ark and possession of it grew to be revered, although in truth it was just a relic. But even today believers love tails of power and mystery attached to relics. God always has and always will do things the natural way.
Evolution of the Fetish
(968.6) 88:2.1 It was a supposed preference of ghosts to indwell some object which had belonged to them when alive in the flesh. This belief explains the efficacy of many modern relics. The ancients always revered the bones of their leaders, and the skeletal remains of saints and heroes are still regarded with superstitious awe by many. Even today, pilgrimages are made to the tombs of great men.
(968.7) 88:2.2 Belief in relics is an outgrowth of the ancient fetish cult. The relics of modern religions represent an attempt to rationalize the fetish of the savage and thus elevate it to a place of dignity and respectability in the modern religious systems. It is heathenish to believe in fetishes and magic but supposedly all right to accept relics and miracles.
(969.1) 88:2.3 The hearth — fireplace — became more or less of a fetish, a sacred spot. The shrines and temples were at first fetish places because the dead were buried there. The fetish hut of the Hebrews was elevated by Moses to that place where it harbored a superfetish, the then existent concept of the law of God. But the Israelites never gave up the peculiar Canaanite belief in the stone altar: “And this stone which I have set up as a pillar shall be God’s house.” They truly believed that the spirit of their God dwelt in such stone altars, which were in reality fetishes.
(969.2) 88:2.4 The earliest images were made to preserve the appearance and memory of the illustrious dead; they were really monuments. Idols were a refinement of fetishism. The primitives believed that a ceremony of consecration caused the spirit to enter the image; likewise, when certain objects were blessed, they became charms.
(969.3) 88:2.5 Moses, in the addition of the second commandment to the ancient Dalamatian moral code, made an effort to control fetish worship among the Hebrews. He carefully directed that they should make no sort of image that might become consecrated as a fetish. He made it plain, “You shall not make a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters of the earth.” While this commandment did much to retard art among the Jews, it did lessen fetish worship. But Moses was too wise to attempt suddenly to displace the olden fetishes, and he therefore consented to the putting of certain relics alongside the law in the combined war altar and religious shrine which was the ark.
(969.4) 88:2.6 Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as God’s words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man. Moses’ very effort against fetishes became a supreme fetish; his commandment was later used to stultify art and to retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful.
(969.5) 88:2.7 In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round.
(969.6) 88:2.8 The practice of opening one of these sacred books to let the eye chance upon a passage, the following of which may determine important life decisions or projects, is nothing more nor less than arrant fetishism. To take an oath on a “holy book” or to swear by some object of supreme veneration is a form of refined fetishism.
(969.7) 88:2.9 But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief’s fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a “sacred book.”
(970.1) 88:2.10 To become fetishes, words had to be considered inspired, and the invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to the establishment of the authority of the church, while the evolution of civil forms led to the fruition of the authority of the state.
Quote (Colter @ June 02 2013,10:17) Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,07:39) Quote (Colter @ May 30 2013,23:03) Hi Ed, God didn't write the Bible, holy men did, so they characterize God as thinking like and emotional man would think.
That's why other areas of the Bible have God getting frustrated that he had even created man, intolerant, angry, genocidal, killing children and women.Colter
Hi Colter,Well that point certainly has merit, but certainly not with the Prophets of God or the Apostles of Christ.
Here is one such example:
“Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error;” (2 Sam 6:6-7)GOD told them how to “safely” handle the ark – with wooden staves (see Exodus 25:13-15),
but Uzzah did not follow GOD's instructions, and he touched The Ark with his bear hands.Nicole Tesla surmised that the Ark acted like a giant capacitor,
capable of discharging large amounts of energy at a moment.What does the UB say about the Ark?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am now answering your question about the “ark” of the covenant and what the UB says about it.Generally, the educated priest class was/is wiser than the average believer therefor these shamans have always sought to manipulate the fears and superstitious awe of the common man for the sake of maintaining order…..for their own good of coarse.
Moses was far advanced for his time, being a reformer and leader, he was wise enough to realize that, while he sought to eliminate the making of graven images, golden calves and such, he still needed to tweak the curiosity of mystery and power in a relic such as the ark. The ark and possession of it grew to be revered, although in truth it was just a relic. But even today believers love tails of power and mystery attached to relics. God always has and always will do things the natural way.
Evolution of the Fetish
(968.6) 88:2.1 It was a supposed preference of ghosts to indwell some object which had belonged to them when alive in the flesh. This belief explains the efficacy of many modern relics. The ancients always revered the bones of their leaders, and the skeletal remains of saints and heroes are still regarded with superstitious awe by many. Even today, pilgrimages are made to the tombs of great men.
(968.7) 88:2.2 Belief in relics is an outgrowth of the ancient fetish cult. The relics of modern religions represent an attempt to rationalize the fetish of the savage and thus elevate it to a place of dignity and respectability in the modern religious systems. It is heathenish to believe in fetishes and magic but supposedly all right to accept relics and miracles.
(969.1) 88:2.3 The hearth — fireplace — became more or less of a fetish, a sacred spot. The shrines and temples were at first fetish places because the dead were buried there. The fetish hut of the Hebrews was elevated by Moses to that place where it harbored a superfetish, the then existent concept of the law of God. But the Israelites never gave up the peculiar Canaanite belief in the stone altar: “And this stone which I have set up as a pillar shall be God’s house.” They truly believed that the spirit of their God dwelt in such stone altars, which were in reality fetishes.
(969.2) 88:2.4 The earliest images were made to preserve the appearance and memory of the illustrious dead; they were really monuments. Idols were a refinement of fetishism. The primitives believed that a ceremony of consecration caused the spirit to enter the image; likewise, when certain objects were blessed, they became charms.
(969.3) 88:2.5 Moses, in the addition of the second commandment to the ancient Dalamatian moral code, made an effort to control fetish worship among the Hebrews. He carefully directed that they should make no sort of image that might become consecrated as a fetish. He made it plain, “You shall not make a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters of the earth.” While this commandment did much to retard art among the Jews, it did lessen fetish worship. But Moses was too wise to attempt suddenly to displace the olden fetishes, and he therefore consented to the putting of certain relics alongside the law in the combined war altar and religious shrine which was the ark.
(969.4) 88:2.6 Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as God’s words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man. Moses’ very effort against fetishes became a supreme fetish; his commandment was later used to stultify art and to retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful.
(969.5) 88:2.7 In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round.
(969.6) 88:2.8 The practice of opening one of these sacred books to let the eye chance upon a passage, the following of which may determine important life decisions or projects, is nothing more nor less than arrant fetishism. To take an oath on a “holy book” or to swear by some object of supreme veneration is a form of refined fetishism.
(969.7) 88:2.9 But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief’s fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a “sacred book.”
(970.1) 88:2.10 To become fetishes, words had to be considered inspired, and the invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to
the establishment of the authority of the church, while the evolution of civil forms led to the fruition of the authority of the state.
The Bible documents that Uzzah “DIED” after touching “The Ark”; do you doubt this report?Hi Colter,
If others were to say: “YOU have a Urantia Book fetish” – what would be YOUR response to this summation?
Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,12:39) Show me where you answered the “other” question.
Here is where I wasted my time posting a comprehensive answer to your question yet you clipped off the “no Ed” part and asked again!!!!!!!!!!!Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,17:51)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,05:39)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,01:33)
Jealousy: is a concern for what belongs to you
Envy: is a concern for what belongs to othersHi Colter,
Do you agree with these definitions?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgColter?
No Ed, In this context I don't. I think you are soft peddling a negative emotional characteristic because it has been erroneously applied to deity. God doesn't have the character flaws of his immature children. This is just another example of forcing a square peg into a round hole, rationalizing something that is not true just because it is in a so called “holy book.”
Jealousy is not a characteristic of God, it is indicative of insecurity. Jealousy is not Love.
(2017.3) 188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
Colter
Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,12:46) Hi Colter, If others were to say: “YOU have a Urantia Book fetish” – what would be YOUR response to this summation?
No, because the UB does not claim to be “The Word of God.”The UB is a composite revelation composed by a number of different universe personalities.
The book makes this frank disclaimer knowing mans habit of fetish making:
(1007.5) 92:4.5 1. The Dalamatian teachings. The true concept of the First Source and Center was first promulgated on Urantia by the one hundred corporeal members of Prince Caligastia’s staff. This expanding revelation of Deity went on for more than three hundred thousand years until it was suddenly terminated by the planetary secession and the disruption of the teaching regime. Except for the work of Van, the influence of the Dalamatian revelation was practically lost to the whole world. Even the Nodites had forgotten this truth by the time of Adam’s arrival. Of all who received the teachings of the one hundred, the red men held them longest, but the idea of the Great Spirit was but a hazy concept in Amerindian religion when contact with Christianity greatly clarified and strengthened it.
(1007.6) 92:4.6 2. The Edenic teachings. Adam and Eve again portrayed the concept of the Father of all to the evolutionary peoples. The disruption of the first Eden halted the course of the Adamic revelation before it had ever fully started. But the aborted teachings of Adam were carried on by the Sethite priests, and some of these truths have never been entirely lost to the world. The entire trend of Levantine religious evolution was modified by the teachings of the Sethites. But by 2500 B.C. mankind had largely lost sight of the revelation sponsored in the days of Eden.
(1007.7) 92:4.7 3. Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.
(1008.1) 92:4.8 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.
(1008.2) 92:4.9 5. The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.
Colter
Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,12:39) Show me where you answered the “other” question.
This is where I first answered your question, it was comprehensive, yet a waste of my time because you actually clipped off the “No Ed” and asked AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,17:51)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,05:39)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,01:33)
Jealousy: is a concern for what belongs to you
Envy: is a concern for what belongs to othersHi Colter,
Do you agree with these definitions?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgColter?
No Ed, In this context I don't. I think you are soft peddling a negative emotional characteristic because it has been erroneously applied to deity. God doesn't have the character flaws of his immature children. This is just another example of forcing a square peg into a round hole, rationalizing something that is not true just because it is in a so called “holy book.”
Jealousy is not a characteristic of God, it is indicative of insecurity. Jealousy is not Love.
(2017.3) 188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
Colter
Quote (Colter @ June 02 2013,21:25) Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,12:39) Show me where you answered the “other” question.
Here is where I wasted my time posting a comprehensive answer to your question yet you clipped off the “no Ed” part and asked again!!!!!!!!!!!Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,17:51)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,05:39)
Quote (Ed J @ May 17 2013,01:33)
Jealousy: is a concern for what belongs to you
Envy: is a concern for what belongs to othersHi Colter,
Do you agree with these definitions?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgColter?
No Ed, In this context I don't. I think you are soft peddling a negative emotional characteristic because it has been erroneously applied to deity. God doesn't have the character flaws of his immature children. This is just another example of forcing a square peg into a round hole, rationalizing something that is not true just because it is in a so called “holy book.”
Jealousy is not a characteristic of God, it is indicative of insecurity. Jealousy is not Love.
(2017.3) 188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
Colter
a negative emotional characteristic …is NOT a definition.Quote (Colter @ June 02 2013,21:35) Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2013,12:46) Hi Colter, If others were to say: “YOU have a Urantia Book fetish” – what would be YOUR response to this summation?
No, because the UB does not claim to be “The Word of God.”The UB is a composite revelation composed by a number of different universe personalities.
The book makes this frank disclaimer knowing mans habit of fetish making:
(1007.5) 92:4.5 1. The Dalamatian teachings. The true concept of the First Source and Center was first promulgated on Urantia by the one hundred corporeal members of Prince Caligastia’s staff. This expanding revelation of Deity went on for more than three hundred thousand years until it was suddenly terminated by the planetary secession and the disruption of the teaching regime. Except for the work of Van, the influence of the Dalamatian revelation was practically lost to the whole world. Even the Nodites had forgotten this truth by the time of Adam’s arrival. Of all who received the teachings of the one hundred, the red men held them longest, but the idea of the Great Spirit was but a hazy concept in Amerindian religion when contact with Christianity greatly clarified and strengthened it.
(1007.6) 92:4.6 2. The Edenic teachings. Adam and Eve again portrayed the concept of the Father of all to the evolutionary peoples. The disruption of the first Eden halted the course of the Adamic revelation before it had ever fully started. But the aborted teachings of Adam were carried on by the Sethite priests, and some of these truths have never been entirely lost to the world. The entire trend of Levantine religious evolution was modified by the teachings of the Sethites. But by 2500 B.C. mankind had largely lost sight of the revelation sponsored in the days of Eden.
(1007.7) 92:4.7 3. Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.
(1008.1) 92:4.8 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.
(1008.2) 92:4.9 5. The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.
Colter
Hi Colter,Do you consider the UB to be authoritative or just someones opinion?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
