Is the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:33 pm

Sandycane wrote: [the Urantia Book] Is Definitely Not a Branch of Christianity!

I disagree. The question for debate is, "Are the believers of the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?"

The UB papers include a lot of material about the life and teaching of Jesus. They make the claim that they are following his examples and his teaching. From my perspective, that makes them Christian.

If they are not Christian what religion are they? They are not Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, Zoroastrian or neo-pagan. They even call themselves Jesusonians.

The teachings in the Urantia Book differ in significant ways from the teachings of the Bible. This is quite apparent. But then so do the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings and the Mormons'. All of these groups are branches of Christianity in the sense that they make the claim to be the true religious followers of Jesus Christ rather than making the claim to be the true religious followers of Gautama Buddha, the Sikh Gurus, Mohammed et al.

I do not claim that they are true followers of the Christian faith. I don't think that anyone can objectively identify the true followers of Jesus Christ's teachings. But even if they do not follow the teachings of Jesus that does not remove them from being categorized as Christian. It just makes them into heretical Christians.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:22 pm

snappyanswer wrote:Urantia and Christianity are never going to be united. I sure would like to see some pseudo-Christian cults just pony up and admit that. Joseph Smith and his Mormon followers did until recent days and now even they are trying desperately to be numbered among the true Christians.
...
There is honesty in a complete frontal attack and dishonesty in claiming membership when one knows they are not.

Snappy,
In the opening post

McCulloch wrote:I do not claim that they are true followers of the Christian faith. I don't think that anyone can objectively identify the true followers of Jesus Christ's teachings. But even if they do not follow the teachings of Jesus that does not remove them from being categorized as Christian. It just makes them into heretical Christians.

The debate in this thread is not whether the UB Jesusonians are True Christians™ but whether their movement is a branch of Christianity. I argue that their emphasis on a historical Jesus places them within that widely diverse group of religions known as Christianity. As has been amply agreed to by all, they are not fundamentalist or even mainstream Christian. Furthermore, they are not making any dishonest claims, since they seem to care not how they are categorized. I was the one making the claim that they are a branch of Christianity. A heretical branch from your point of view, but certainly a branch. In the same way (historically not theologically) that the Mormons are a branch of Christianity.

snappyanswer · Post by **snappyanswer** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm

Heretics are not members but liars, traitors and an evil to be repelled FROM the church. And, to protect the flock FROM. The New Testament letters are clear on that. The Gospels are clear on that. Your only chance for your all-inclusive Christianty is waiting until judgment day and watching the Angels seperate the wheat from the tares.

Jesus is not an outer space alien. He is not the spirit brother of Satan. He is not Michael the Arch Angel.

In the Bible He is the Creator. God. Or you have a different Jesus.

I did not write the New Testament. I just follow it without entertaining heresy. Maybe my own hypocrisy from time to time and sin sometimes, but not a denial of truth IN the Bible. When I lie knowingly I don't build a freaky new religion I repent and follow the real one.

It is not sensible to allow anyone or everyone to be allowed to call themselves Christians. Otherwise pedophiles and rapists are valued members of the Church to be tolerated and not expelled and prosicuted. There is clearly within the Gospels and letters, clear lines of demarcation of who is and who isn't a believer.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:34 pm

snappyanswer wrote:Heretics are not members but liars, traitors and an evil to be repelled FROM the church. And, to protect the flock FROM. The New Testament letters are clear on that. The Gospels are clear on that. Your only chance for your all-inclusive Christianty is waiting until judgment day and watching the Angels seperate the wheat from the tares. ...

History is full of various branches of Christianity labeling the other branches of Christianity with the name, "Heretic". I think that the difficulty we have here is one of definition. Christians tend to use a theological definintion of Christianity. You are a Christian if you have a certain faith. As an objective outsider, I am not prepared to evaluate which of the many branches of Christianity has the authentic message. I am refering to a more historical and sociological definition.

Or look at it this way. The branches of Islam include Sunni, Shi'i, Sufi, Hanifa, Maliki, Shafi'i, Zaydi, the Nusayri, Ismaili, Murji'ah, Wahhabi, Nation of Islam or Black Muslims, etc. I am sure that some of these branches have beliefs or practices which are unacceptable to some of the other branches. That does not change the fact that these have all branched out from the same original source.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:37 pm

The early Christians were considered heretics then Paul was considered a heretic. I agree but that is besides the point. I really don't believe they(UBers) think it is a lie.
Even the Gospels don't agree or some of the letters. Paul was having visions and preaching a different gospel then Jesus' original followers.
At least according to Paul.

faithful1 · Post by **faithful1** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:15 am

snappyanswer wrote: Jesus is not an outer space alien. He is not the spirit brother of Satan. He is not Michael the Arch Angel.

In the Bible He is the Creator. God. Or you have a different Jesus.

The Urantia Book actually has no disagreement with those statements.

Bro Dave · Post by **Bro Dave** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Its been a while, but the teaser email I received has my attention, so Let me jump right (back) into the fray!

No, the Urantia Book is not "a branch of Christianity". It is just the latest (promised), update to try and unscramble the mess created by the mostly well meaning folks who love Jesus, but have failed miserably to preserve or to promote his teachings.

Christianity is built around Paul's personal dogmas, not Jesus' personal religion. Paul, of course never even met Jesus, who died long before Paul's conversion. However, were it NOT for Paul, there would be fewer today who discovered Jesus personally, and welcome him into their lives. Paul packaged a religion ABOUT Jesus that was attractive to the culture of his time. The spark were sufficient to start a fire, and for that we do owe him a debt. But, the time has come once again to bring the message of Jesus back to man/womenkind, who so desperately needs to hear it.

Some UB readers, prefer to be refered to as Jesusonian, rather than Christian, but most see no need for labels. The truths Jesus lived and shared are sufficient summations of what they believe. Since the name "Urantia" refers to our planet, the title "Urantian" is the usually accepted name for its inhabitants.

Bro Dave

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:56 pm

Welcome back, Bro Dave

Bro Dave wrote:Some UB readers, prefer to be referred to as Jesusonian, rather than Christian, but most see no need for labels.

Why not? I believe that various groups should be called by the name that they, themselves prefer.

Bro Dave wrote:Since the name "Urantia" refers to our planet, the title "Urantian" is the usually accepted name for its inhabitants.

But, in English, the inhabitants of this planet call it "Earth" and the usually accepted name for its most sentient inhabitants is humans. Is there some compelling reason to change to the name allegedly used by off-worlders?

Bro Dave · Post by **Bro Dave** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:18 pm

McCulloch wrote:Welcome back, Bro Dave

Thank you for the welcome back!

Bro Dave wrote:Some UB readers, prefer to be referred to as Jesusonian, rather than Christian, but most see no need for labels.
Why not? I believe that various groups should be called by the name that they, themselves prefer.

Because labels tend to be exclusionary, not inclusive, and the Urantia Book is a vehicle which shows how we all have legitimate reasons for our individual, (universal) misunderstandings. We are all siblings, so if you need a label, use that one.

Bro Dave wrote:Since the name "Urantia" refers to our planet, the title "Urantian" is the usually accepted name for its inhabitants.
But, in English, the inhabitants of this planet call it "Earth" and the usually accepted name for its most sentient inhabitants is humans. Is there some compelling reason to change to the name allegedly used by off-worlders?

No one is suggesting that everyone has to adopt the Urantian name. It is simply how we are known beyond our tiny sphere. Eventually, when the races have blended and intelect holds sway over ego, we may consider how we are known by those who administer the evolving worlds, but right now, its not even on the the radar screen. Mutual respect is a more attractive activity, don't you think?

Bro Dave