My issue with Urantia

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,459
Reaction score
2,678
Points
108
According to Dr Sadler, The Urantia Book (UB hereafter) was 'complete and certified' in 1935.

However, Ernest Moyer (a believer) has carefully documented that Dr. Sadler indeed made changes to the text after this date. So either the 'sources' are not infallible, or he found errors in their transmissions.

Matthew Block (another believer), documents the human texts woven into the UB and moreover texts incorporated after its supposed 'sign-off', one such being a text incorporated word perfect 7 years later.

Changes continued to be made up to at least 1955.

The point here is that the book, supposedly signed-off by its superhuman sources, still contained errors and omissions which were subject to later, human revision. It sees then that human hands were required to correct superhuman errors in the text.

Suffice to say therefore, that regardless of the source, the integrity of this “revelation” is not entirely trustworthy.

Now, as a Christian, where does that leave me?

Dr. Sadler states that the information imparted through the “sleeping subject” was 'essentially Christian.'

However, it's demonstrably clear that UB is essentially anti-Christian in that it denies or distorts almost every fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. The only way it can be claimed to be Christian is if one ignores the Bible itself ... and as the Bible is the only source, then UB is logically self-refuting.

UB has Jesus declaring to Nathaniel, “the Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin” (UB, 159.4.3).
The description of Scripture as 'altogether human' is a fundamental rejection of Abrahamic Revelation in its entirety, of both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament. It rejects the biblical view of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation, sacraments, the eschaton. It espouses polytheism – in some ways pseudo-Arian, although that does a disservice to Arius (And Bock, elsewhere, refutes the claim of Arianism, displaying a faulty understanding of Arian doctrine.) “Gods” capitalised appears in numerous places.

While acknowledging one supreme God, it polytheism, according to a critic, “puts Greek and Hindu mythology to shame.” And suffice to say, don't start me on its 'Trinity of Trinities' which evidences a staggering lack of spiritual or metaphysical insight.

The virgin birth is rejected, rather, He is presented as the incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, the creator of our universe and one of “more than 700,000 Creator Sons of the Eternal Son.” This clearly conflicts with the New Testament’s view of Jesus, the Biblical Creation, Eden, the Serpent, the Fall and Biblical angelology.

All in all the UB proclaims a different God, a different Jesus, and a different Gospel from that of the Bible. Its message, allegedly revealed by higher spiritual beings, is absolutely and fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity.

Reflecting on Scripture, we read:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," (1 Timothy 4:1)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

"And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray." (Matthew 24:11)

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Now, whether these are human words, or divine advice, they make good common sense ... and this much I know:
Truth is incapable of error, and those who speak in truth are incapable of error, so, if there are errors in the UB which appear to come from the very sources themselves (indeed errors which Sadler and his co-workers sought to cover) then the sources are not infallible.

So where there are errors, there is darkness, either the darkness of ignorance, or the greater and more unsettling darkness of deception ...

Whichever, the sources and the human co-workers cannot be trusted.

Dr. Sadler once wrote that if there was anything supernatural about mediumistic phenomena, it was probably demonic. But when he actually encountered such phenomena at first hand, it appears he fell under its glamour.

Lastly, this:
Ernest Moyer offers an intriguing thesis in "The Origin of the Urantia Papers”.

He offers Dr Sadler as the "contact personality”, but argues he's not the “sleeping subject” and furthmore argues that neither is Kellogg, whom many people think is. Much of his work exposes 'corruptions' to the text of the UB between 1939 and 1942, both in content and source.

Here's an interesting thing:
Sadler's wife, Lena, died in 1939. By this time, the activity of the 'sleeping subject' had ceased, leaving him without a connection to 'divine advice'.
Was Lena then, his muse, the sleeping subject?

Moyer argues that something happened after the last of the papers was delivered in 1935. Sadler himself mentions a “third series” of revelations, being some clarifications that appear to have entered the text between 1939 and 1942.

By now the editorial team is Sadler, an unknown number of people supposedly witnesses of the 'sleeping subject' (and if the subject was a psychiatric patient, this is a violation of human rights) and the Forum, some 400 strong!

Enter Christy – Emma Christensen – the adopted daughter of the Sadlers. She began to claim contact with spiritual beings who wished to deliver further clarifications to the revelation!

Moyer claims Christy was a 'bad channeler', that her revelations were more likely sourced from her own subconscious, and that she was responsible for 'corruptions' creeping into the text. In her materials a midwestern conservative sensibility of the revealing supernatural being shines forth!

Add to this intermediaries between the human and higher realms, necessary because the higher realms cannot make themselves intelligible to the human sphere and we have so many laters of redaction ...
 

LuisMarco

Well-Known Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Mexico City
According to Dr Sadler, The Urantia Book (UB hereafter) was 'complete and certified' in 1935.

However, Ernest Moyer (a believer) has carefully documented that Dr. Sadler indeed made changes to the text after this date. So either the 'sources' are not infallible, or he found errors in their transmissions.

Yes, completed and certified, and also a third presentation of URANTIA before its publication in october 1955, but not through the good revelatiors: the third one was by the devil, totally documented by ernest moyer in his book: http://ubannotated.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MoyerBirthRev.pdf (from: http://ubannotated.com/main-menu/animated/history-of-the-urantia-book/)

sadler might have never done any changes to the text of URANTIA with his adopted daughter ‘christy’ except through the channeling they did with the devil (we don't have fear to call it like/as it is) in the approximate time of the ‘third presentation’ of The Urantia Papers, again documented by moyer; the URANTIA celestial authors/revelators never claim this divine revelation to be infallible (we can see the ‘errors’ are due to the hand of the devil circa 1939 or after 1939); examples:
7:5.7 The bestowals of the Eternal Son in Havona are not within the scope of human imagination; they were transcendental. He added to the experience of all Havona then and subsequently, but we do not know whether he added to the supposed experiential capacity of his existential nature. That would fall within the bestowal mystery of the Paradise Sons. We do, however, believe that whatever the Eternal Son acquired on these bestowal missions, he has ever since retained; but we do not know what it is.
9:6.8 The mind-gravity circuit is dependable; it emanates from the Third Person of Deity on Paradise, but not all the observable function of mind is predictable. Throughout all known creation there parallels this circuit of mind some little-understood presence whose function is not predictable. We believe that this unpredictability is partly attributable to the function of the Universal Absolute. What this function is, we do not know; what actuates it, we can only conjecture; concerning its relation to creatures, we can only speculate.
etc.

there’s dated science in URANTIA, although already acknowledged by its revelators at 101:4.2.

URANTIA was NOT spiritually channeled: the revelators even are against it (as they call it, 'spiritualism', 'mediumship'):
77:8.13 Their chief work today is that of unperceived personal-liaison associates of those men and women who constitute the planetary reserve corps of destiny. It was the work of this secondary group, ably seconded by certain of the primary corps, that brought about the co-ordination of personalities and circumstances on Urantia which finally induced the planetary celestial supervisors to initiate those petitions that resulted in the granting of the mandates making possible the series of revelations of which this presentation is a part. But it should be made clear that the midway creatures are not involved in the sordid performances taking place under the general designation of "spiritualism." The midwayers at present on Urantia, all of whom are of honorable standing, are not connected with the phenomena of so-called "mediumship"; and they do not, ordinarily, permit humans to witness their sometimes necessary physical activities or other contacts with the material world, as they are perceived by human senses.
to be continued...
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,459
Reaction score
2,678
Points
108
... the third one was by the devil, totally documented by ernest moyer in his book ...
Is Moyer's thesis that demonic intervention the explanation of all the questions the accepted norm now?

URANTIA was NOT spiritually channeled: the revelators even are against it (as they call it, 'spiritualism', 'mediumship'):
to be continued...
I didn't say spiritually channeled, I said channeled. I think the book is a product of the human mind, spun from a variety of human sources which have been well-documented.

By any understanding of the term channeled, this is channeling – the descriptions of the 'sleeping subject' are bang-on channeling.
 

LuisMarco

Well-Known Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Mexico City
Is Moyer's thesis that demonic intervention the explanation of all the questions the accepted norm now?
nobody is telling you or imposing upon you that his book documenting the hand of the devil around and with URANTIA is the 'accepted norm now'; he did his homework as i and a few others have; you haven't.
I didn't say spiritually channeled, I said channeled. I think the book is a product of the human mind, spun from a variety of human sources which have been well-documented.

By any understanding of the term channeled, this is channeling – the descriptions of the 'sleeping subject' are bang-on channeling.
your definition of human mind channels is totally wrong, it doesn't even exist according to the wikipedia: it always involves 'spirits' or the 'higher self' (spiritually).

no: before you make a statement patently false again, document what you claim, because the so-called sleeping subject was not the origin of supposed 'human' revelations: URANTIA was created by spiritual beings (some of them divine), but by another and different process and method.

now, before i continue with the rest of your op above, why don't you explain now the huge contradictions in the Bible, and why they are there if it's totally divine and infallible:
'Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions': bart ehrman, phd.
as the URANTIA book says quoting JESUS:
159:4.6 "The thing most deplorable is not merely this erroneous idea of the absolute perfection of the Scripture record and the infallibility of its teachings, but rather the confusing misinterpretation of these sacred writings by the tradition-enslaved scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem. And now will they employ both the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their misinterpretations thereof in their determined effort to withstand these newer teachings of the gospel of the kingdom. Nathaniel, never forget, the Father does not limit the revelation of truth to any one generation or to any one people. Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of the Scriptures.
159:4.8 "Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,459
Reaction score
2,678
Points
108
nobody is telling you or imposing upon you that his book documenting the hand of the devil around and with URANTIA is the 'accepted norm now';
OK. Just wondering if it was, or not.
your definition of human mind channels is totally wrong, it doesn't even exist according to the wikipedia: it always involves 'spirits' or the 'higher self' (spiritually).
According to that wiki article:
"Channeling
A conduit ... which allows a person to connect or communicate with a spiritual realm, metaphysical energy, or spiritual entity, or vice versa."

Explain where I'm wrong, as this seems to be what Sadler claims for 'the sleeping subject'?

because the so-called sleeping subject was not the origin of supposed 'human' revelations: URANTIA was created by spiritual beings (some of them divine), but by another and different process and method.
OK. What method is that?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,459
Reaction score
2,678
Points
108
now, before i continue with the rest of your op above, why don't you explain now the huge contradictions in the Bible, and why they are there if it's totally divine and infallible
Ah ... you're probably labouring under the popular American ideology concerning the text.

The idea that the Bible is literally infallible pops up every now and then, but its current claim to inerrancy rests largely on the insistence of various American evangelicals. It was a common belief in Sadler's day, but it's never been asserted with such rigorous and overtly literal fundamentalism.

As for Dr Ehrman's thesis, while I admire his scholarship, I do not accept all his conclusions. Suffice to say he represents one extreme, as it were, of a broad range of studies (in fact he moved from one polar extreme to the other, a not uncommon transit). If you wan't me to discuss particular issues, I'm glad to do so ... but you link to an Ehrman video above, I could link to an N.T Wright counterpoint. Suffice to say, I favour Weright more than I favour Ehrman, although I enjoy them both, if not quite equally.

Either way, I would not take Urantia's comments in Paper 159 as 'gospel' ;) the paper says more to me about it's human author and certain views on Scripture common to the era.

But let's stop here ... this dialogue, such as it is, is going nowhere.

If you want to discuss any of Ehrman's ideas, I'm open to do so.
 

LuisMarco

Well-Known Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Mexico City
OK. Just wondering if it was, or not.

According to that wiki article:
"Channeling
A conduit ... which allows a person to connect or communicate with a spiritual realm, metaphysical energy, or spiritual entity, or vice versa."

Explain where I'm wrong, as this seems to be what Sadler claims for 'the sleeping subject'?
oh yes you are wrong again; reread your wikipedia; sadler never claims 'this' for the sleeping subject; what are you even talking about¿
OK. What method is that?
i've already stated what method is that; here it is:
 

LuisMarco

Well-Known Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Mexico City
Either way, I would not take Urantia's comments in Paper 159 as 'gospel' ;) the paper says more to me about it's human author and certain views on Scripture common to the era.

But let's stop here ... this dialogue, such as it is, is going nowhere.

If you want to discuss any of Ehrman's ideas, I'm open to do so.
remember, URANTIA is beyong the time it was created, with far more and better real revelations than you will and can ever imagine.
so is the Bible inerrant and infallible and perfect or not¿
illustrate us, be our guest.
 

LuisMarco

Well-Known Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Mexico City
Matthew Block (another believer), documents the human texts woven into the UB and moreover texts incorporated after its supposed 'sign-off', one such being a text incorporated word perfect 7 years later.
block is not a believer since decades ago (you seem to know what is false actually ah¿); so what text 'word perfect 7 years later' into URANTIA are you even talking about¿, help us so we can explain it, illustrate us.
Changes continued to be made up to at least 1955.
yes and here's why:
The point here is that the book, supposedly signed-off by its superhuman sources, still contained errors and omissions which were subject to later, human revision. It sees then that human hands were required to correct superhuman errors in the text.
the devil used humans to introduce corruptions into the URANTIA text, not to correct them (the corrections are in the bold link just above): read book the birth of a divine revelation: the origin of the URANTIA papers by moyer... or don't.
Suffice to say therefore, that regardless of the source, the integrity of this “revelation” is not entirely trustworthy.
URANTIA is trustworthy beyond anybody can imagine...
Dr. Sadler states that the information imparted through the “sleeping subject” was 'essentially Christian.'
yes, and you then say sadler produced URANTIA tru his subsconscious; aren't you contradicting yourself again and again¿
However, it's demonstrably clear that UB is essentially anti-Christian in that it denies or distorts almost every fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. The only way it can be claimed to be Christian is if one ignores the Bible itself ... and as the Bible is the only source, then UB is logically self-refuting.
you are self-refuting yourself, since URANTIA and christianity are very in accord with one another, but URANTIA goes deeper than christianity:
UB has Jesus declaring to Nathaniel, “the Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin” (UB, 159.4.3).
The description of Scripture as 'altogether human' is a fundamental rejection of Abrahamic Revelation in its entirety, of both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament. It rejects the biblical view of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation, sacraments, the eschaton. It espouses polytheism – in some ways pseudo-Arian, although that does a disservice to Arius (And Bock, elsewhere, refutes the claim of Arianism, displaying a faulty understanding of Arian doctrine.) “Gods” capitalised appears in numerous places.
yes, many doctrines are faulty, false and sordid in the Bible, including the gospels, paul, and so on:
92:7.3 The many religions of Urantia are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as The Truth; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a Urantia religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals.

While acknowledging one supreme God, it polytheism, according to a critic, “puts Greek and Hindu mythology to shame.” And suffice to say, don't start me on its 'Trinity of Trinities' which evidences a staggering lack of spiritual or metaphysical insight.
no, that's what you say; let's see what URANTIA say: https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-106-universe-levels-reality#U106_8_0 ['The Trinity of Trinities']

The virgin birth is rejected, rather, He is presented as the incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, the creator of our universe and one of “more than 700,000 Creator Sons of the Eternal Son.” This clearly conflicts with the New Testament’s view of Jesus, the Biblical Creation, Eden, the Serpent, the Fall and Biblical angelology.
this doesn't contradict anything; it betters all those concepts and corrects them.
All in all the UB proclaims a different God, a different Jesus, and a different Gospel from that of the Bible. Its message, allegedly revealed by higher spiritual beings, is absolutely and fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity.
195:9.8 The world needs more firsthand religion. Even Christianity — the best of the religions of the twentieth century — is not only a religion about Jesus, but it is so largely one which men experience secondhand. They take their religion wholly as handed down by their accepted religious teachers. What an awakening the world would experience if it could only see Jesus as he really lived on earth and know, firsthand, his life-giving teachings! Descriptive words of things beautiful cannot thrill like the sight thereof, neither can creedal words inspire men's souls like the experience of knowing the presence of God. But expectant faith will ever keep the hope-door of man's soul open for the entrance of the eternal spiritual realities of the divine values of the worlds beyond.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Test the spirits!: you never tested the spirits of URANTIA...

Truth is incapable of error, and those who speak in truth are incapable of error, so, if there are errors in the UB which appear to come from the very sources themselves (indeed errors which Sadler and his co-workers sought to cover) then the sources are not infallible.
URANTIA claims not to be infallible.
So where there are errors, there is darkness, either the darkness of ignorance, or the greater and more unsettling darkness of deception ...
And the deception of christianity and the old testament¿¿¿, what about them¿¿¿¿¿. there's no deception, deceit, nor lies within URANTIA, except corruptions and evill stuff introduced by the devil.
Whichever, the sources and the human co-workers cannot be trusted.
because you say so¿, but yes, sadler and others were faulty, not all of them though.
Dr. Sadler once wrote that if there was anything supernatural about mediumistic phenomena, it was probably demonic. But when he actually encountered such phenomena at first hand, it appears he fell under its glamour.
no: sadler mainly believed these mediumship phenomena were psychic in origin, frauds and the like; and sadler also said he didn't know if the are possibly diabolic etc:
He offers Dr Sadler as the "contact personality”, but argues he's not the “sleeping subject” and furthmore argues that neither is Kellogg, whom many people think is. Much of his work exposes 'corruptions' to the text of the UB between 1939 and 1942, both in content and source.
yeah.
Here's an interesting thing:
Sadler's wife, Lena, died in 1939. By this time, the activity of the 'sleeping subject' had ceased, leaving him without a connection to 'divine advice'.
Was Lena then, his muse, the sleeping subject?
you can't be farther from the facts: there's no evidences the contact with the sleeping subject was ended after lena's death; or can you document that lena was the sleeping subject¿, illustrate us¿¿¿, and yes sadler was the 'contact personality'.
Moyer argues that something happened after the last of the papers was delivered in 1935. Sadler himself mentions a “third series” of revelations, being some clarifications that appear to have entered the text between 1939 and 1942.
yeah: remember, it was the devil...
By now the editorial team is Sadler, an unknown number of people supposedly witnesses of the 'sleeping subject' (and if the subject was a psychiatric patient, this is a violation of human rights) and the Forum, some 400 strong!
a violation of his human rights how exactly¿, what in the world are you even talking about¿¿¿¿¿
Enter Christy – Emma Christensen – the adopted daughter of the Sadlers. She began to claim contact with spiritual beings who wished to deliver further clarifications to the revelation!
indeed!!!.
Moyer claims Christy was a 'bad channeler', that her revelations were more likely sourced from her own subconscious, and that she was responsible for 'corruptions' creeping into the text. In her materials a midwestern conservative sensibility of the revealing supernatural being shines forth!
yeah, but what do you mean by her midwestern conservative sensibility of the revealing supernatural being shines forth'¿¿¿, it seems you are just saying this just because, right¿
Add to this intermediaries between the human and higher realms, necessary because the higher realms cannot make themselves intelligible to the human sphere and we have so many laters of redaction ...
many layers of redaction eh¿, yes there are midway paths between the Divine and the finite.
and URANTIA reveals that the finitite and the Infinite can be in union and in communion; remember it very well...
 
Last edited:

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
22,891
Reaction score
2,564
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Looking at this thread as a reader, seems there is a plethora of less than admirable debate tactics in use here.

What does a biblical historical accuracy discussion have to do with Urantia?

The thread diversion does not help the discussion, nor do demeaning comments.

Citing Wikipedia as proof of channeling methodology is interesting.
 
Top