Oahspe is a spiritual channelling from the devil but The Law of One is a spiritual channelling not from the devil? Is there a way to know?The law of One: it's the best channeling i've ever read; and it says its celestial authors come from venus, and nasa has already admitted there could or is life in venus (this by nasa relatively recently); that mars was inhabited; it talks of ufos a bit; galactic civilizations; and other spiritual things including the tarot, etc: www.lawofone.info
Just on that point, I don't think we can say 'direct' as there is no authenticated line of transmission – the author(s) both mundane and other-worldly do not directly identify themselves? It's all anonymous ... there's nothing direct about that.
There is, there is: the revelators/authors identify themselves, sometimes by type (order) of being, other times by both name and type; one only has to go to the URANTIA titles of the Papers to see this very aspect...Just on that point, I don't think we can say 'direct' as there is no authenticated line of transmission – the author(s) both mundane and other-worldly do not directly identify themselves? It's all anonymous ... there's nothing direct about that.
A believer can subsequently claim it to be from a certain source, but we have no evidence to suggest as such.
Matthew Block, who sourced almost all The Urantia Papers to human authors, said there was no plagiarism in URANTIA, but that there was plagiarism with some of the books by Sadler, the man directly associated with URANTIA from the start.That texts have been lifted word-for-word (technically plagiarism); in other cases are clearly the same texts with slight alterations. The derivative nature of these texts are a matter of public knowledge.
I can see a higher source referencing the fruits of human wisdom, but then in some cases the scientific wisdom is actually wrong. To say the error was allowed because it was expedient to do so casts the whole enterprise into doubt. Why, then, is not all of it error, written for, as one might say, disenfranchised Christians in the United States?
Lmao: URANTIA is the most timeless and eternal and important divine revelation to ever appear on Urantia (earth)... you better inform yourself the better and read it all... or not.Revelation is, by its nature, timeless. It's from, or at least speaks of, the eternal, and it addresses the timeless and eternal, not the contingent. That is what is evident in the sacra doctrina of the world's great traditions. Any text subject to contingency, to correction and revision in the light of new understanding, addresses the finite, the contingent and, in the broader scheme of things, the ephemeral.
What do you mean just above?As regards Christianity ... and indeed as someone with an interest in Comparative Religion ... I find the misunderstandings of the world's Spiritual Traditions as somewhat startling and, I cannot help feeling, anachronistic.
0:12.11 (16.8) In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.
0:12.12 (17.1) Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.
0:12.13 (17.2) We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.
0:12.14 (17.3) [Indited by an Orvonton Divine Counselor, Chief of the Corps of Superuniverse Personalities assigned to portray on Urantia the truth concerning the Paradise Deities and the universe of universes.]
No, not false ... the human agent(s) is/are not named.
Thank you. My point. And again, we have no way of knowing the extent of unoriginal material in the book.Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed ...
No, not false ... the human agent(s) is/are not named.
Possibly Kellogg, possibly the Sadlers, possibly others. If the human source is unknown, the ontological source remains questionable.
The claimed origin is pretty much the same ad Edgar Cayce.
In fact so much is like other cults of the era.
And we have no way of knowing how much human editing took place ... nor why celestial beings would seem so dependent on human authors, especially when there is so much contingent and erroneous material. If there is error in what we can prove, we have no way of knowing what error there is in what we cannot.
You accept it as a matter of faith. OK. I happen not to.
They are determined that future generations shall have the book wholly free from all mortal connections—they do not want a Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Luther, Calvin or Wesley. The book does not even bear the imprint of the printer who brought the book into being.
Not 'thank you': my mistake:Thank you. My point. And again, we have no way of knowing the extent of unoriginal material in the book.
I've read that most of Book IV, especially the early years of Jesus, was 'compiled' from other books supposedly detailing the lost years.
URANTIA has almost zero similarities to adventism; and its criticisms of christianity are original, but we don't know how much, except for some unoriginal, of course, but you don't claim to know this when you haven't read all of URANTIA, do you¿.As regards its version of Christianity ... not far off Adventism, and its criticisms are hardly original ...
Both were channels while asleep. They are fundamentally the same modes of transmission.And URANTIA is not like any cults of the time nor similar to Cayce, at all whatsoever...
Sorry, you need to check. Soul-sleep, anihilationism – there's the most common two, so 'zero' is a long way off the mark.URANTIA has almost zero similarities to adventism
I have dipped. For example, I check the Urantia version of the Wedding at Cana. Apart from the mundane creativity, the central act – the water into wine – suffice to say the point, that shines out in the symbolism for those with the eye to see, is again rendered mundane within the fantastical context of the work as a whole.and its criticisms of christianity are original, but we don't know how much, except for some unoriginal, of course, but you don't claim to know this when you haven't read all of URANTIA, do you¿.
Just to be clear, plagiarism does not just mean copying word-for-word. It also means reproducing by paraphrase.i wanted to ask the query: Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA???: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed.
You do know the idea that Jesus is the Archangel Michael is an Adventist idea, don't you?yes there is a way to know how much of the JESUS Papers are original: look up matthew block... Paper 120, JESUS Papers' first Paper, is totally original according to matthew's non-perfect work...
FALSE: they are not the same transmission method; even a follower of Cayce would tell you URANTIA is different; but anyway i have studied both and they are different.Both were channels while asleep. They are fundamentally the same modes of transmission.
Sorry, you need to check. Soul-sleep, anihilationism – there's the most common two, so 'zero' is a long way off the mark.
I have dipped. For example, I check the Urantia version of the Wedding at Cana. Apart from the mundane creativity, the central act – the water into wine – suffice to say the point, that shines out in the symbolism for those with the eye to see, is again rendered mundane within the fantastical context of the work as a whole.
Just to be clear, plagiarism does not just mean copying word-for-word. It also means reproducing by paraphrase.
Essentially means the text presents content allowing the reader to assume an erroneous source – it's not your idea, you got it from somewhere else, but trade it, even indirectly, as your own.
So – if you can direct me to a version of the book where all the derivative material is clearly footnoted and acknowledged – including Sadler's prior writings that have been folded into the work – then I can read Urantia and know with clarity what is taken from contemporary writings and what is delivered from the higher realms.
FALSE again: URANTIA never identifies MICHAEL (JESUS) with any archangel, but it does say in two places (only): the 'archangel of MICHAEL':You do know the idea that Jesus is the Archangel Michael is an Adventist idea, don't you?
37:3.6 Two senior archangels are always assigned as the personal aids of a Paradise Avonal on all planetary missions, whether involving judicial actions, magisterial missions, or bestowal incarnations. When this Paradise Son has finished the judgment of a realm and the dead are called to record (the so-called resurrection), it is literally true that the seraphic guardians of the slumbering personalities respond to "the voice of the archangel." The roll call of a dispensation termination is promulgated by an attendant archangel. This is the archangel of the resurrection, sometimes referred to as the "archangel of Michael."
OK. I have made small researches, and already enough no suggest it's not the thing for me.NO: i don't only have faith in it; i know what i know coz i have thoroughly researched and understood URANTIA and much more... see???.