Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Turtle]

Then again the Urantia book will be thought of as another bull **** religion that tried to establish it's self through misdirection, obfuscation and lies.

 

Alllll righty thens. :D Moving from the physical sciences to the social sciences in regard to complications & contradictions in The Urantia Book.

 

First to MoonTanMaster :hammer:, TUB makes clear that no religion/church ought have its establishment based on the book. Fortunately, folks have only formed up a Urantia 'brotherhood' (sorry sisters). ;)

 

Now to the good stuff:

 

Roughly the last 1/3 of TUB concerns Jesus, and we'll start at page 1341, Chapter 8. Previous Written Records. >>

...121:8.1 As far as possible, consistent with our mandate, we have endeavored to utilize and to some extent co-ordinate the existing records having to do with the life of Jesus on Urantia. Although we have enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew and have benefited from the collaboration of a vast host of celestial beings who were on earth during the times of Michael's bestowal (notably his now Personalized Adjuster), it has been our purpose also to make use of the so-called Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. ...

 

So a Gospel of Andrew is the oldest rarest remaining written record of Jesus, and here is a description of the work.: >>

 

The Acts of Andrew (Acta Andreae), is the earliest testimony of the acts and miracles of the Apostle Andrew. The surviving version is alluded to in a third century work, the Coptic Manichaean Psalter, providing a terminus ante quem, according to its editors, M.R. James (1924)[1] and Jean-Marc Prieur in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol. 1, p. 246), but it shows several signs of a mid-second century origin

...

In a separate text known by the name of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, which was edited by Bonnet in 1898 and translated by M.R. James,[5] Matthias is portrayed as a captive in a country of anthropophagi (literally man-eaters, i.e. cannibals) and is rescued by Andrew and Jesus; it is no longer considered to be a portion of the text of Acta Andreae.

...

The Acts of Andrew was often classed as a gnostic work before the library of Nag Hammadi clarified modern understanding of Gnosticism; Geoffrey Trowbridge asserts that "The importance of martyrdom is stressed throughout, which is not in line with Gnostic philosophy". ...

Acts of Andrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So Acts of Andrew was new on the scene when Sadler was writing/researching, having come 'out' in 1924. So far so good...but wait...what's this? Nag Hammadi what? Where? When?!!! Rats!

 

...In 1946, the brothers became involved in a feud, and left the manuscripts with a Coptic priest, whose brother-in-law in October that year sold a codex to the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo (this tract is today numbered Codex III in the collection). The resident Coptologist and religious historian Jean Dorese, realising the significance of the artifact, published the first reference to it in 1948. Over the years, most of the tracts were passed by the priest to a Cypriot antiques dealer in Cairo, thereafter being retained by the Department of Antiquities, for fear that they would be sold out of the country. After the revolution in 1956, these texts were handed to the Coptic Museum in Cairo, and declared national property. ...

Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If only the UTB editors could have held out a weeee bit longer. Not to be.

[Majeston]

So, when are you guys gonna bring the first team out? What is this, the warm up squad?

[Moontanman]

So, when are you guys gonna bring the first team out? What is this, the warm up squad?

 

You've already been blown out of the water on every single premise you have claimed on the book of urinatia. Are you still trying to hold your breath to prevent the ocean of truth from drowning you or are you just the king of denial?

[modest]

So, when are you guys gonna bring the first team out? What is this, the warm up squad?

 

Yeah, that's real flattering Majeston - but you should know we actually do have some rocket scientists, particle physicists, and more chemistry, biology, and math experts than you can throw a Urantia book at waiting in the wings. Perhaps you think this debate is going well for you. Let me give you some advice.

 

Here is a quote from me:

 

That’s a good question Majeston. Asking how we know it is wrong and how we can prove it is wrong is a good direction for this debate in my opinion.

 

You ask how I know what happened one or two billion years ago and the answer to this is fairly simple. Light travels at a speed of one light-year per year. If I look through a telescope and see something two billion light-years away then I am looking directly at how the universe looked two billion years ago.

 

The first Urantian claim that I quoted said something along the lines of this part of the universe being inspected 900 billion years ago. If we use the look-back method I described in the previous paragraph we notice our universe was filled with super-dense and super-hot plasma less than fourteen billion years ago. (1) We expected this and in fact predicted it as a result of expansion. It was confirmed with CMB radiation which is nothing more than looking back at the state of the universe nearly 13.7 billion years ago.

 

There is other physical evidence supporting these conclusions. Moontanman pointed out radioactive decay. The oldest stars that are uranium dated (a method of dating the age of a star by comparing radioactive isotopes of thorium and uranium) are found to agree with the WMAP age of 13.7 billion years (2). There is also globular cluster dating and the theoretical backing of general relativity which leads to standard cosmology.

 

So, the answer is yes, we know the date of 900 billion years is wrong. It would be a tragedy to ignore all the hard work and good conclusions humanity has accomplished in favor of an unsupported book of faith. I also do not appreciate being called blind for having a perspective on this book that includes the evidence above which is clearly different from your own.

 

The next quote of which I take issue is claiming that earth was one fifth its current size (volume?) two billion years ago. Rocks on the current surface of the earth are commonly dated from three to four billion years(3). Radiometric dating makes this possible. Geologists agree with the nuclear physicists on this and disagree with Urantian theology by counting layers of sedimentation which deposit predictably from year to year. The moon has been dated as have meteorites originating from elsewhere in the solar system. These different methods and evidence create a very self-consistent picture of the history of the solar system that does not allow for the earth to be molten and one fifth its current size two billion years ago.

 

The last quote involves biology and the claim that life is younger than 700 million years. This would seem to ignore all precambrian life and the Proterozoic era in particular. I am not as familiar with biology as with geology and the other sciences. But, I know there is too much evidence of life in this era to simply ignore its existence. Which is really what is going on here. Nearly the entire knowledge base of science that humans have attained is simply being ignored in favor of poorly written fiction.

 

I would also note that it’s ironic how you claim no one can really know what happened two billion years ago while you support something that claims to know what inspector number 811,307 was doing 900 billion years ago. Quite clearly there is a double standard here that disallows you to acknowledge anything contradictory to your faith in this book while at the same time accepting any ridiculous claim it makes. With this in mind, I realize the futility of arguing reason toward the resolution of our differences. I wrote this post simply to support my claims and have no expectation that you will recognize any of it.

 

~modest

 

Notice the last paragraph in particular. Here is your response:

 

The Big Bang Never Happened

 

So, you may think a bit more retrospectively before insulting your opponents. Because honestly - do we need to bring in the pinch hitters for that? I give you a full page of supporting evidence complete with links and references and you give me a one line prelude to nothingness. Whatever the motivation for your insult is - it is not warranted and not welcome.

 

People have aptly debated this issue with you and you have insisted on insulting them time and again. Now, rather than letting you derail this conversation again - how about you address my quote up there or turtle's new post, or one of the many other productive areas of discussion available to you.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

Modest,

 

I know I should have put a smiley face in my above quip which you took offense at. Live and learn.

 

I do appreciate your response but I think you are also assuming a bit too much.

My response entitled The Big Bang Never Happened had a link associated with it, it was not merely a statement. Did you study it or did you simply think that it was a glib comment?

 

Virtually everything that you cited in your response is common knowledge and honestly I skipped over it because of this. Although I do know that there are very extraordinary credentials on this website, Urantia does have its share of professionals who happen to know both sets of material quite well. For myself, probably the least of the pros here are more qualified than I am. I am not trying to fudge or mislead anyone in that regard.

 

When you spit out something as the above, I really have to work at a coherent response and spend quite a bit of time on it.

 

The Big Bang is not a given, it is a theory and not a very good one at that, even if there is a few drops of substantiating data. There is far more data which raises suspicion about it than supports it. But, I understand that it is the best that modern science can offer at this time. The answer to that is quite simply that no- one is out there investing money and trying to "prove" Urantia stuff. In fact, when someone like McMenamin or Mullis steps forward publicly and even mentions it they stand to lose credibility and even funding or their jobs, if not all three. It is a brave and foolish soul which bucks academia or the "establishment".

 

So what we get is all these fine students sitting in classrooms paying big bucks with current Big Bang books and given tests to complete a degree in physics or Astronomy and on their tests they simply parrot back what they have been taught. The wayward iconoclast of maybe 1/10,000 is lost in the shuffle.

 

Anywayzeeeee, I'm not trying to insult anyone, and actually I think if you look back on this thread, even from the beginning you would have to admit that the majority of that is coming at Urantia instead of from it. Even the title of the thread presupposes a hoax. It's not even Is Urantia a hoax or not, It's who could have hoaxed it as if it's a foregone conclusion.

 

"Nearly the entire knowledge base of science that humans have attained is simply being ignored in favor of poorly written fiction."

 

 

"So, you may think a bit more retrospectively before insulting your opponents."

 

 

I'm really not looking at this as "opponents". My hopes are to raise the attention level to the non mainstream science of Urantia such as the big bang and other things such as the red shift problems due to multiple unknown levels of rotation so that when new discoveries are made in these areas as they will be, some people will be aware of the sources and more credibility will be focused on a harmonization of philosophy, science and religion as portrayed in the revelation.

 

"There are a few scientists such as Hubbleís former assistant, Halton Arp, who are not inclined to believe the ìgenesis ideaî of an expanding ìbig bangî universe bursting into existence exactly 13.7 billion years ago. They cite conflicting astronomical evidence ñ photos of gravitationally connected systems with very different red shifts [sco05]. These skeptics of large recessional velocities [Pan05] offer alternate explanations for the large shifts toward lower, less energetic, red frequencies that light quanta coming from far distant objects display."

Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web

"Rotational Redshifts"

[Majeston]

Turtle,

 

thanks for the link to Andrews lost record. I had read that before but was not aware that there were some surviving parts of it. I will enjoy reading what is available.

 

 

"

If only the UTB editors could have held out a weeee bit longer. Not to be."

 

I don't get your thought here.

[Moontanman]

Modest,

 

I know I should have put a smiley face in my above quip which you took offense at. Live and learn.

 

I do appreciate your response but I think you are also assuming a bit too much.

My response entitled The Big Bang Never Happened had a link associated with it, it was not merely a statement. Did you study it or did you simply think that it was a glib comment?

 

Virtually everything that you cited in your response is common knowledge and honestly I skipped over it because of this. Although I do know that there are very extraordinary credentials on this website, Urantia does have its share of professionals who happen to know both sets of material quite well. For myself, probably the least of the pros here are more qualified than I am. I am not trying to fudge or mislead anyone in that regard.

 

When you spit out something as the above, I really have to work at a coherent response and spend quite a bit of time on it.

 

The Big Bang is not a given, it is a theory and not a very good one at that, even if there is a few drops of substantiating data. There is far more data which raises suspicion about it than supports it. But, I understand that it is the best that modern science can offer at this time. The answer to that is quite simply that no- one is out there investing money and trying to "prove" Urantia stuff. In fact, when someone like McMenamin or Mullis steps forward publicly and even mentions it they stand to lose credibility and even funding or their jobs, if not all three. It is a brave and foolish soul which bucks academia or the "establishment".

 

So what we get is all these fine students sitting in classrooms paying big bucks with current Big Bang books and given tests to complete a degree in physics or Astronomy and on their tests they simply parrot back what they have been taught. The wayward iconoclast of maybe 1/10,000 is lost in the shuffle.

 

Anywayzeeeee, I'm not trying to insult anyone, and actually I think if you look back on this thread, even from the beginning you would have to admit that the majority of that is coming at Urantia instead of from it. Even the title of the thread presupposes a hoax. It's not even Is Urantia a hoax or not, It's who could have hoaxed it as if it's a foregone conclusion.

 

"Nearly the entire knowledge base of science that humans have attained is simply being ignored in favor of poorly written fiction."

 

 

"So, you may think a bit more retrospectively before insulting your opponents."

 

 

I'm really not looking at this as "opponents". My hopes are to raise the attention level to the non mainstream science of Urantia such as the big bang and other things such as the red shift problems due to multiple unknown levels of rotation so that when new discoveries are made in these areas as they will be, some people will be aware of the sources and more credibility will be focused on a harmonization of philosophy, science and religion as portrayed in the revelation.

 

"There are a few scientists such as Hubbleís former assistant, Halton Arp, who are not inclined to believe the ìgenesis ideaî of an expanding ìbig bangî universe bursting into existence exactly 13.7 billion years ago. They cite conflicting astronomical evidence ñ photos of gravitationally connected systems with very different red shifts [sco05]. These skeptics of large recessional velocities [Pan05] offer alternate explanations for the large shifts toward lower, less energetic, red frequencies that light quanta coming from far distant objects display."

Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web

"Rotational Redshifts"

 

So what it all boils down to is that you are trying to preach the Urantia idea by refusing to see any main stream science that points toward a reality other than the one described in the book of urinatia. At the same time you assume the book of urinatia is true with out any supporting evidense. Can you not see the basic flaw in this type of thinking? If you refuse to see any of main stream science as real and believe the book of urinatia to be true no matter what science says then why are you here on a science site preaching this stuff. Why not find a nice religion site and convert them, at least with them you would be halfway there. Or is it they don't believe you either? Any way you look at it you are not amenable to a scientific debate because you refuse to allow the book of urinatia to be held to scientific scrutiny. All you are willing to say that if the book appears to be wrong now it's because science is wrong and will eventually figure out that the book of urinatia is correct. If you really believe that then I suggest you wait and hope to live another 900,000,000 years. What it really looks like to me is that you cannot be a part of either world and have to use confusion and word play to try and slip into a real world. Religion already has their world sewn up so this one is the only one that tolerates you.

[modest]

My response entitled The Big Bang Never Happened had a link associated with it, it was not merely a statement. Did you study it or did you simply think that it was a glib comment?

 

I did look at it - and there's no way you can know this, but I've spent a good deal of time researching and debating all of those cosmological issues. If you would like to honestly take up that cause there are people of like-mind in 'Astronomy and Cosmology' who would help carry that banner.

 

When you spit out something as the above, I really have to work at a coherent response and spend quite a bit of time on it.

 

I understand. I'm the same way with many issues such as biology (evolution) and quantum mechanics.

 

The Big Bang is not a given, it is a theory and not a very good one at that, even if there is a few drops of substantiating data.

 

The big bang is as substantiated as pangea. So, the real question becomes: why do you support the one and deny the other?

 

There is far more data which raises suspicion about it than supports it.

 

You either know what you're saying is false or you have only ever been presented with biased evidence. BBT is not a house of cards. Many many observations are independent. For instance, this is the CMB radiation spectrum measured by COBE:

 

-source

 

If it is a blackbody curve then the universe was filled with super-hot plasma at redshift 1088. It was predicted before it was measured. It is the most precise blackbody radiation curve ever measured in nature. You can ignore this or choose not to understand it but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. It was predicted, measured, and speaks more loudly than Urantia.

 

But, I understand that it is the best that modern science can offer at this time.

 

I don't think you do. "The best modern science can offer" is something Einstein derived called general relativity which then in turn derives the big bang. When Einstein, 99.99% of the scientific community, and a mountain of physical evidence agree then that is the best science can offer. You can't cheapen that. Your book can't cheapen that.

 

The answer to that is quite simply that no- one is out there investing money and trying to "prove" Urantia stuff. In fact, when someone like McMenamin or Mullis steps forward publicly and even mentions it they stand to lose credibility and even funding or their jobs, if not all three. It is a brave and foolish soul which bucks academia or the "establishment".

 

And here you're misunderstanding science. Scientists don't spend ungodly amounts of money trying to prove theories right - they try to break them. Right now the standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of a Higgs particle. They are spending billions of dollars building the LHC to try and test the model and see if the particle is there. If they liked the theory so much that they didn't want to know if it was right or wrong, would they do that? Would they put the theory in jeopardy by testing it? No. Experimentation that cost money tests the validity of theory and cannot be twisted into an evil endeavor as you attempt.

 

EDIT:

In proofing this it's apparent I misunderstood what you were saying. An appropriate response would have been:

Isn't testing scientific theories and testing Urantia somewhat equivalent seeing how people claim Urantia knows and knew the truth of science and is scientifically accurate? Proving Mercury is not tidally locked is equivalent to proving Urantia's claim on the subject, is it not? The normal study of geology and biology can prove or disprove this:

PAPER 59 - THE MARINE-LIFE ERA ON URANTIA

End Edit

 

So what we get is all these fine students sitting in classrooms paying big bucks with current Big Bang books and given tests to complete a degree in physics or Astronomy and on their tests they simply parrot back what they have been taught. The wayward iconoclast of maybe 1/10,000 is lost in the shuffle.

 

You're in the wrong place to try and sell what you're saying.

 

It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is; If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

 

-Richard Feynman

 

Anywayzeeeee, I'm not trying to insult anyone, and actually I think if you look back on this thread, even from the beginning you would have to admit that the majority of that is coming at Urantia instead of from it. Even the title of the thread presupposes a hoax. It's not even Is Urantia a hoax or not, It's who could have hoaxed it as if it's a foregone conclusion.

 

I agree. Everything (including Urantia) is treated skeptically by science. The Feynman quote above is not an off-handed remark. Science doesn't believe anything until it predicts something that can be tested and it passes the test. Scientifically minded people will approach this book and anything and everything else skeptically. Sorry if you were expecting something different.

 

I'm really not looking at this as "opponents".

 

“Opponent” is the appropriate term to call the opposing side of a debate. As I enjoy spending my time on a science forum it should be obvious I think there is nothing wrong with scientific debate, but it is rather beneficial.

 

My hopes are to raise the attention level to the non mainstream science of Urantia such as the big bang and other things such as the red shift problems due to...

 

Urantia says the universe is older than 900 billion years. We would need some drastic redshift problems to accomplish that. Current estimates have the hubble constant at 71 and [imath]\Omega_M[/imath] at .27. So what would they need to be to make the universe as old as you claim. Well, if the hubble constant were 5 then the universe would be 172 billion years old - still not old enough. If H were 1 - that's "one" - the universe would still only 573 billion - not old enough. So, we keep H at 1 turn [imath]\Omega_M[/imath] down to 0.1 and [imath]\Omega_{VAC}[/imath] up to one and we get 676 billion years. That is unrealistic beyond... way beyond, anything.

 

When you say redshift problem to people who are familiar with redshift problems it's not going to imply a 900 billion year old universe. The Hubble constant might be 69 and might be 73 (and that's pushing it) - but it's not one. The debate is over some missing mass and a couple billion years at most. That is not enough to validate the claim in Urantia. Not to mention - the oldest stars are point one percent as old as Urantia claims. If people were around here checking out stars 900 Gyrs ago, where are the 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, etc billion year old stars?. Stars can get that old, and we would be able to find them. You frankly can't get away with what you're trying to do. You can't obfuscate an issue to people who understand the issue.

 

"There are a few scientists such as Hubbleís former assistant, Halton Arp, who are not inclined to believe the ìgenesis ideaî of an expanding ìbig bangî universe bursting into existence exactly 13.7 billion years ago. They cite conflicting astronomical evidence ñ photos of gravitationally connected systems with very different red shifts [sco05]. These skeptics of large recessional velocities [Pan05] offer alternate explanations for the large shifts toward lower, less energetic, red frequencies that light quanta coming from far distant objects display."

Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web

"Rotational Redshifts"

 

Halton Arp? I just can't... well, You can read what I've written previously:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/8224-origin-universe-bang-no-bang-9.html#post216444

 

If you show me some positive contribution that this book has made - then I'll agree with you. I have no bias against something that makes good sense.

 

But, from what I've seen there is no way I'd be convinced it is anything but the creation of someone with a lot of time on their hands - very human hands with very human ideas. To change my mind on that would take some really fantastic revelation that it appears isn't there.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Turtle,

 

thanks for the link to Andrews lost record. I had read that before but was not aware that there were some surviving parts of it. I will enjoy reading what is available.

 

It's what I do. :steering:

 

 

If only the UTB editors could have held out a weeee bit longer. Not to be.

 

I don't get your thought here.

 

That doesn't bode well for me building trust in your ability or diligence for working out the meaning of writings. Similarly, you earlier misundertook the parable of the blind men & the elephant. I think in the spirit of learning & self discovery, I'll let you chew on what I said for awhile and see if you can't get the thought then.

[REASON]

If only the UTB editors could have held out a weeee bit longer. Not to be. :steering: :hyper:

 

I know where you're going with this Turtle.

 

How far have you gotten in your comparison?

 

I expect you have found some conflicts.

[Turtle]

I know where you're going with this Turtle. :cup:

 

How far have you gotten in your comparison?

 

I expect you have found some conflicts.

 

Nothing further yet; domestic obligations prevail. Will leave this to steep a while. :cup: .........................

[Majeston]

You gotta love these games :cup:

 

ANywayzzzzzzz Turt,

 

How could I not understand the parable of the blind men? I'm the one that posted it. I posted it in reference to a conversation that was going on between you and someone else, maybe Modest, I'll have to look back. It struck me as humorous, but that's only because we have differing views of the U material and i"ve had the advantage of reading some of the things you have posted in that regard. Of course I've only had the book for about 40 years so my understanding could be quite jaded and I'm not a rocket scientist, so there is a lot that is simply over my head. I'm just don't share your (already settled in your own mind as fact) viewpoints. Probably, if we considered some of the same material at the same time and our individual understandings of content, we both could reach a more enlightened understanding.

 

If your mysterious "thought" which has elicited such a response as " That doesn't bode well for me building trust in your ability or diligence for working out the meaning of writings." has something to do with a printing date of UP 1955 vs. "after the reveloution in 1956" or, "published the first reference to it in 1948.", isn't really very clear for your comment of "

If only the UTB editors could have held out a weeee bit longer. Not to be.".

 

I suppose ot has something to do with your aprori assumption of a hoax or human writers. Anywayzzzzzzzz, we could make much better progress if we skip the guessing games and just make it clear what we are talking about, if one of us doesn't understand.

 

k?

[Caligastia]

My guess is that Turtle is assuming that the authors of the UB are referring to "The Acts of Andrew" when they say they "enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew". Turtle then seems to show how "The Acts of Andrew" were discredited shortly after the UB was published. Do I have that right Turtle?

[Turtle]

My guess is that Turtle is assuming that the authors of the UB are referring to "The Acts of Andrew" when they say they "enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew". Turtle then seems to show how "The Acts of Andrew" were discredited shortly after the UB was published. Do I have that right Turtle?

 

Yes & no. Yes I think the UB authors are referring to the Acts of Andrew as described in the Wiki article I linked. Acts of Andrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia However, these writings aren't discredited as to authenticity of age, regardless of who wrote them as far as I see, either now or in 1955 when UB was first published.

 

I will confirm my main point of contradiction in regard to my post #88 when one of y'all UB believers states it explicitly & succinctly first. It is a plain as the noses on our faces. :) :weather_snowing:

[Turtle]

You gotta love these games :)

 

ANywayzzzzzzz Turt,

 

How could I not understand the parable of the blind men? I'm the one that posted it. I posted it in reference to a conversation that was going on between you and someone else, maybe Modest, I'll have to look back.

By all means do look back. You misapplied the parable initially because no version of the story involves only 2 blind people. Furthermore, you misapplied it to the circumstance here because the parable is not about blindness (by which you meant to imply Modest's & my ignorance), but about the ignorant fighting over their perceptions rather than discussing them rationally. Here's the Wiki to revisit for clarification: >> Blind Men and an Elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

It struck me as humorous, but that's only because we have differing views of the U material and i"ve had the advantage of reading some of the things you have posted in that regard. Of course I've only had the book for about 40 years so my understanding could be quite jaded and I'm not a rocket scientist, so there is a lot that is simply over my head. I'm just don't share your (already settled in your own mind as fact) viewpoints. Probably, if we considered some of the same material at the same time and our individual understandings of content, we both could reach a more enlightened understanding.

 

We are considering the same material here & now. The rest of your observation in the above paragraph is superfluous posturing. About 40 years? What is that? 37? 32? 39? :hyper: I have had the book since 1982, and what is changed since then is the internet and the ability to instantly resource libraries of the world while sipping coffee and smokin' a butt. :cup: ;) I also remind you, et al, that I communicated regularly with the Urantia Foundation and received reams of documents from them concerning their activities over many years.

 

Anywayzzzzzzzz, we could make much better progress if we skip the guessing games and just make it clear what we are talking about, if one of us doesn't understand.

 

k?

 

Please revisit post #88 and read all the links I provided, not just the quotes I took from them. Copyright rules prohibit posting the entire articles.

[modest]

I'd guess it doesn't mention the Gospel of Judas either. Very few people in 1955 would have know such a thing was said to have existed... until it was discovered. The same of course goes for the Nag Hammadi library. These seem more like omissions than contradictions to me. Someone could argue that works not mentioned are apocryphal and don't deserve to be mentioned. They're mostly Gnostic anyway. What have I missed? No point in waiting Turtle, throw it on the table and let's pick it apart.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

I'd guess it doesn't mention the Gospel of Judas either. Very few people in 1955 would have know such a thing was said to have existed... until it was discovered. The same of course goes for the Nag Hammadi library. These seem more like omissions than contradictions to me. Someone could argue that works not mentioned are apocryphal and don't deserve to be mentioned. They're mostly Gnostic anyway. What have I missed? No point in waiting Turtle, throw it on the table and let's pick it apart.

 

~modest

 

As you will. :hyper: There was a method to my madness, but maybe you can't teach an old coyote new tricks after all.

 

The complication lies in the fact that the UB authors' aside I quoted says authoritively that the 'following' are the only human written records of Jesus. The 'following' then are the Acts/Gospel/whatever of Andrew and then Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John. At the time of the UB's writing (the only date the book gives for the 'transmission' of the papers is 1934), as well as the first printing in 1955, these indeed were the only openly known such human records. Moreover, the authors make clear that they have rules saying they can't use supernatural sources without special permission, and that the human record is primary. [The author gets a few digs in this prefacing passage of UB on us stupid human's inability to figure out anything complex. )

 

So, as you say Modest, what about the Gospel of Judas? What about the Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel of James? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? What about the Nag Hammadi library? What we are looking for in the UB section on Jesus is what is not there; any mention of these Gnostic writings. Why aren't they there? Because humans wrote it before these texts were found. Big complication make for big contradiction. ;)