The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[ST88]

But to the point of this thread. Bro Dave used a quote the Urantia Book as evidence that an event (Jesus' bodily resurrection) really did happen. Is that use of the UB warranted? Does it meet any evidentiary standards used by historians?

Not to be glib, but does any religious text meet this standard? Naturally, we can point to landmarks within certain texts and say that such and such lake was really there during such and such time. But as for these mystical events, how can any religious text have any "better" truth over any other?

The short answer is no, there is no historical worth in making such a claim. But I thought that the point of the exercise (i.e., religion) was that historicity & evidence don't matter if you feel that something is true and happened.

[AlAyeti]

Isn't the Urantia another book in the category of automatic writings?

Has anyone read Oasphe a Kosmon Bible?

[Bro Dave]

QED, this isn't about being able for one "faction" to "dismiss" some other "faction" This is about finally understanding how we can and do have a commonality, too often ignored in favor of demanding everyone agree with our own points of view. This broader view threatens no one, except those who continue to demand exclusive ownership of what is true.

'Bout time you showed up here Notice that I am talking about the nature of divine revelation. The preposterous amount of detail contained within the UB surpasses that of the bible. Now I doubt if you'll claim that is meant to be allegorical -- do you?

So, you prefer less details? Hmmm, I would not have anticipated that! And no, I make no allegorical claims. The Urantia Book has in many places given insights into future science, which only recently were born out.(Continental drift, for one, and our being in error by a factor of 1 million on the size of the electron for another)

Seriously, the one "fact" that is totaly apparent, is that no one has a lock on "THE TRUTH". That includes the insistance that the Universe has simply always been, and is just continuely cycles. Unwillingness even to consider the testimony of others who claim personally to experience an interface with intelligences outside our physical dimensions, seems more fearful than scientific. Science deals with the physical. That hardly implies that it is impossible to have anything exist beyond our humble capabilities to shove it under a microscope. (its that ego thing again) This is so reminicent of when I graduated from High School. God! what I wouldn't give to be that smart, and that informed again!

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

To get back to the question of debate, can anyone supporting the use of the Urantia books as historical evidence cite any examples of recognized historians using the books in this way.
If not, then the proponents of the book will have the difficulty of explaining why they feel that all recognized historians are not competent in their own field.

[Bro Dave]

To get back to the question of debate, can anyone supporting the use of the Urantia books as historical evidence cite any examples of recognized historians using the books in this way.
If not, then the proponents of the book will have the difficulty of explaining why they feel that all recognized historians are not competent in their own field.

That is a legitimate question. However, the UB does not attempt to justify what it reveal against our human records. The reason, I suspect, is that history has always been written by the winners, and or by those who have had an interest in how they were depicted historically. What is offered, is a record of history from the perspective of those who have been here all along, with no axes to grind. Their perspective is simply offered as a continious, unimcumbered view. The Celestial Authors really go out of their way not to "sell" anything. The Urantia Book is for those who are tired of trying to read betweeen the lines, and to piece together a picture from fragments, some of which have been badly distorted.

For this reason, only a few will discover the wonderful sweeping panarama of not only our little planet, but of the entire universe. You need to be hungry enough to read enough, for the wonder of its deepth and its consistancy to come together, and to come through. But then again, the book says that it was not expected to be a sweeping overnight acceptance. The UB is actually meant for the next milennia or so. By then, we will be ready for a little more, and there will be yet another, a "Sixth Epochal Revelation" in whatever for is appropriate for that time.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Isn't the Urantia another book in the category of automatic writings?

Has anyone read Oasphe a Kosmon Bible?

No, it was a transcription, not automatic writing. The individual involved was both unaware of, and uninterested in either the content or in his role. Dr Sadler was actually a very active debunker of mysticism and the occult at the time his patent began sharing cosmic answers to the Doctor's questions. He, infact has just written "The Mind at Mischeif", an expose of all the nonsense and trickery of the day.

The interface use to aquire the Urantia Book was unique, in that it required two intermmediate levels to make the connections. The Celestial needed other beings who are a level closer to us to operate through. So, this is not to be confused with conversations with the "neally departed" who seem to be reluctant to leave the planet.

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

To get back to the question of debate, can anyone supporting the use of the Urantia books as historical evidence cite any examples of recognized historians using the books in this way.
If not, then the proponents of the book will have the difficulty of explaining why they feel that all recognized historians are not competent in their own field.

That is a legitimate question. However, the UB does not attempt to justify what it reveal against our human records. The reason, I suspect, is that history has always been written by the winners, and or by those who have had an interest in how they were depicted historically. What is offered, is a record of history from the perspective of those who have been here all along, with no axes to grind. Their perspective is simply offered as a continious, unimcumbered view. The Celestial Authors really go out of their way not to "sell" anything. The Urantia Book is for those who are tired of trying to read betweeen the lines, and to piece together a picture from fragments, some of which have been badly distorted.
For this reason, only a few will discover the wonderful sweeping panarama of not only our little planet, but of the entire universe. You need to be hungry enough to read enough, for the wonder of its deepth and its consistancy to come together, and to come through. But then again, the book says that it was not expected to be a sweeping overnight acceptance. The UB is actually meant for the next milennia or so. By then, we will be ready for a little more, and there will be yet another, a "Sixth Epochal Revelation" in whatever for is appropriate for that time.

The Urantia Book then offers nothing in the way of historical evidence about Jesus' resurection. It provides what is called an eyewitness account but provides no verifiable evidence of this eyewitness account. So a skeptic is left in the same place as with the Bible. If you believe in the book then you believe in the event. And without the book, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

[Scrotum]

Perhaps Jesus never died?

He could have gotten a heart attack because of the treatment enlisted on him (i know i would), they assume his death, poke him a bit, and strap him done, dump in him a cave (for some reason), and then his heart starts bumping again, he´s not in tip topp, but still alive, strolls out, as most likely his slaves have moved the rock for him..

feasible?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps Jesus never died?

He could have gotten a heart attack because of the treatment enlisted on him (i know i would), they assume his death, poke him a bit, and strap him done, dump in him a cave (for some reason), and then his heart starts bumping again, he´s not in tip topp, but still alive, strolls out, as most likely his slaves have moved the rock for him..

feasible?

Scotum, you are off topic for this thread, which is to debate the validity of using the Urantia Book as historical evidence. Perhaps you should post in Are there any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

[Bro Dave]

To get back to the question of debate, can anyone supporting the use of the Urantia books as historical evidence cite any examples of recognized historians using the books in this way.
If not, then the proponents of the book will have the difficulty of explaining why they feel that all recognized historians are not competent in their own field.

That is a legitimate question. However, the UB does not attempt to justify what it reveal against our human records. The reason, I suspect, is that history has always been written by the winners, and or by those who have had an interest in how they were depicted historically. What is offered, is a record of history from the perspective of those who have been here all along, with no axes to grind. Their perspective is simply offered as a continious, unimcumbered view. The Celestial Authors really go out of their way not to "sell" anything. The Urantia Book is for those who are tired of trying to read betweeen the lines, and to piece together a picture from fragments, some of which have been badly distorted.
For this reason, only a few will discover the wonderful sweeping panarama of not only our little planet, but of the entire universe. You need to be hungry enough to read enough, for the wonder of its deepth and its consistancy to come together, and to come through. But then again, the book says that it was not expected to be a sweeping overnight acceptance. The UB is actually meant for the next milennia or so. By then, we will be ready for a little more, and there will be yet another, a "Sixth Epochal Revelation" in whatever for is appropriate for that time.

The Urantia Book then offers nothing in the way of historical evidence about Jesus' resurection. It provides what is called an eyewitness account but provides no verifiable evidence of this eyewitness account. So a skeptic is left in the same place as with the Bible. If you believe in the book then you believe in the event. And without the book, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

Jesus' rising from the dead, was simply a demonstration that he could overcome death, even his own.
As to records, Jesus went to great effort to insure he let nothing behind in the way of physical artifacts, even stripping his home of everything he had written before leaving on his final ministry. His focus was on revealing God to man, not on whipping up a religion about himself personally. This basic misunderstanding of why Jesus came, has caused much confusion and pain. Had we gotten his message straight, we would have focused on loving one another, and particularly on the Love available directly within, because God literally lives within each of us. Jesus' life was an example of how we can indeed be perfect even as God is perfect. He was to be our inspiration, not a sacrifical animal! He was, and is the way, the Truth, and the Life, in that he personally is our Creator, and our access to divinity. It would have been nice had those he came to inform, and gotten the message, and had then recorded it, but sadly, they did not.

Bro Dave