Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
7 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2008 - 1:19PM #1
AshtarothKarnim
Posts: 92
ilu shelem

the Machivanta is not the Melochizedek I know, though his continued work and order in the world is a relevant point.Soo to the continued mystery and enigma and order of priests of Melchizedek!

whats the latest ?

salem
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2008 - 9:26PM #2
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

AshtarothKarnim wrote:

ilu shelem

the Machivanta is not the Melochizedek I know, though his continued work and order in the world is a relevant point.Soo to the continued mystery and enigma and order of priests of Melchizedek!

whats the latest ?

salem



Hi Ashtaroth,

There are a great number of Melkizadeks, as that is the name of a type of angel. Machieventa is perhaps the most well known, because he materialised here. And has now been promoted to Planaetary Prince.

Whats the latest. Well apparently the arrival of a Magisterial Son, and according to some reports, he may arrive with 100 Melkizadeks. So there should be plenty to go round? When will he arrive? I wish I knew, but its "close" whatever that means.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2008 - 9:26PM #3
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

AshtarothKarnim wrote:

ilu shelem

the Machivanta is not the Melochizedek I know, though his continued work and order in the world is a relevant point.Soo to the continued mystery and enigma and order of priests of Melchizedek!

whats the latest ?

salem



Hi Ashtaroth,

There are a great number of Melkizadeks, as that is the name of a type of angel. Machieventa is perhaps the most well known, because he materialised here. And has now been promoted to Planaetary Prince.

Whats the latest. Well apparently the arrival of a Magisterial Son, and according to some reports, he may arrive with 100 Melkizadeks. So there should be plenty to go round? When will he arrive? I wish I knew, but its "close" whatever that means.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2008 - 10:48PM #4
Joseph14
Posts: 119
NothingButLove,

Is this the same Mechizedek in the Bible? I heard stories that he was "the ageless Son of Adam, Seth". What is the purpose of the Mechizedeks you speak of?

Joseph14
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 4:39AM #5
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

Joseph14 wrote:

NothingButLove,

Is this the same Mechizedek in the Bible? I heard stories that he was "the ageless Son of Adam, Seth". What is the purpose of the Mechizedeks you speak of?

Joseph14



Yes its the same Melkizadek, and the Ubook has a bit to say about that.

The Machiventa Incarnation

What is their purpose? Hmm. . I think that is hard, without going back to the Ubook, which doubtless has a lot to say. From my point of view, I gather they are the "tough" angels, and at one time petitioned to wipe us all out, and start again.  Here is something from the Ubook:

  The Melchizedeks are widely known as emergency Sons, for they engage in an amazing range of activities on the worlds of a local universe. When any extraordinary problem arises, or when something unusual is to be attempted, it is quite often a Melchizedek who accepts the assignment. The ability of the Melchizedek Sons to function in emergencies and on widely divergent levels of the universe, even on the physical level of  personality manifestation, is peculiar to their order. Only the  Life Carriers share to any degree this metamorphic range of personality function.      93:0.2  The Melchizedek order of universe sonship has been exceedingly active on Urantia. A corps of twelve served in conjunction with the Life Carriers. A later corps of twelve became receivers for your world shortly after the Caligastia secession and continued in authority until the time of  Adam and  Eve. These twelve Melchizedeks returned to Urantia upon the default of Adam and Eve, and they continued thereafter as planetary receivers on down to the day when Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of Man, became the titular  Planetary Prince of Urantia.

(This is a cut and paste, and sadly I cannot get the html to display, to fix the stuff that does not work.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 4:39AM #6
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

Joseph14 wrote:

NothingButLove,

Is this the same Mechizedek in the Bible? I heard stories that he was "the ageless Son of Adam, Seth". What is the purpose of the Mechizedeks you speak of?

Joseph14



Yes its the same Melkizadek, and the Ubook has a bit to say about that.

The Machiventa Incarnation

What is their purpose? Hmm. . I think that is hard, without going back to the Ubook, which doubtless has a lot to say. From my point of view, I gather they are the "tough" angels, and at one time petitioned to wipe us all out, and start again.  Here is something from the Ubook:

  The Melchizedeks are widely known as emergency Sons, for they engage in an amazing range of activities on the worlds of a local universe. When any extraordinary problem arises, or when something unusual is to be attempted, it is quite often a Melchizedek who accepts the assignment. The ability of the Melchizedek Sons to function in emergencies and on widely divergent levels of the universe, even on the physical level of  personality manifestation, is peculiar to their order. Only the  Life Carriers share to any degree this metamorphic range of personality function.      93:0.2  The Melchizedek order of universe sonship has been exceedingly active on Urantia. A corps of twelve served in conjunction with the Life Carriers. A later corps of twelve became receivers for your world shortly after the Caligastia secession and continued in authority until the time of  Adam and  Eve. These twelve Melchizedeks returned to Urantia upon the default of Adam and Eve, and they continued thereafter as planetary receivers on down to the day when Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of Man, became the titular  Planetary Prince of Urantia.

(This is a cut and paste, and sadly I cannot get the html to display, to fix the stuff that does not work.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 8:43PM #7
Joseph14
Posts: 119
Thank you, NothingButLove, for the explanation of the term "Melchizedek".

I have a question that may need a new thread under "Urantia Book".

First, what is "mediumship"? I noticed the word in one of the htmls that you listed,

Second, is the Urantia Book a "progressive work" requiring "mediumship" to be used to create a continuous scenario in order to, first, avoid stagnancy in the UBook, and to "keep matters progressive and in the present"?

I haven't read the UBook except for exerpts. So I have no concept on how it can be a "continuous saga" as opposed to "a historical saga".

Joseph14
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 9:00PM #8
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

Joseph14 wrote:

Thank you, NothingButLove, for the explanation of the term "Melchizedek".

I have a question that may need a new thread under "Urantia Book".

First, what is "mediumship"? I noticed the word in one of the htmls that you listed,

Second, is the Urantia Book a "progressive work" requiring "mediumship" to be used to create a continuous scenario in order to, first, avoid stagnancy in the UBook, and to "keep matters progressive and in the present"?

I haven't read the UBook except for exerpts. So I have no concept on how it can be a "continuous saga" as opposed to "a historical saga".

Joseph14



Dear Joseph,

Mediumship is the receipt of information by some means from other realms of consciousness. This always involves a human, who is the medium. Many folks receive thoughts into their minds, and either speak these into a tape recorder, or write them down, or type. Some folks may use a pen, and have the pen automatically write. Some folks are fully conscious during this process, and able to ask questions mid thought as it were. Others are effectively unconscious, and don't know what they have received till later.

It should be generally accepted that because a human mind is involved, it is possible, indeed very common, for the belief structure of the human to interfere. Some mediums are clearly much better at avoiding this, but it is wise to realise that this is far from a perfect type of communication.

Apparently, in the case of the person who received the Urantia Book, this occurred during his sleep, and if this is entirely accurate, it is certainly very unusual. Because of this difference, the Urantia Foundation and 99.99% of the followers of the Urantia Book do not consider it a channeled book, or a book received by a medium. I find that amusing. But there have been other unusual mediums. Robert James Lees reported that the spirit communicator he used physically materialised and sat in a chair opposite and dictated. Now thats unusual. However there has always been a great effort by the Urantia Foundation to avoid the criticism that Leviticus prohibits such spirit communication.

Is it progressive? Wow you hit a sore bit. 95% of the followers say no, it is a complete revelation. Completed about 1950 or so. They make a big play about it being the FER - The Fifth Epochal Revelation. But there is a group called the Teaching Mission, who have received a great number of messages in the last ten years, and who are spurned by the Foundation and most followers who are just as uptight about this sort of thing as many Bible followers. I believe we will be subject to ongoing revelation, and this may be drip feed, or sometimes a complete revelation.

In the case of the Padgett Messages, these are certainly ongoing, and have been for 80 years.

I haven't read the UBook except for exerpts. So I have no concept on how it can be a "continuous saga" as opposed to "a historical saga".

Can't recall the context in which I said that, so I can't help.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2008 - 6:54PM #9
Joseph14
Posts: 119
NothingButLove,

I must beg your indulgence. Your comments have always been positive, uplifting, and on point for the subject matter underlying the UBook. I do apologize if I have touched on some "sore points", but I have an inquiring mind. You are a fair-minded individual and I respect your comments.

The only book that I can compare to the UBook is the Bible. Perhaps, this is so, because I have read the Bible all my life and it has "slanted", and perhaps, "narrowed" my view of Christ's legacy. You have me thinking about the Pre-Crucifixion Jesus versus the Resurrected Jesus. One living in the flesh, the other living in the Spirit. Then, there's Paul, who comes in the Post Resurrection Jesus, via revelation. I believe I can see an analogy of the revelations of Paul as the analogy of the revelations of the UBook. Both are Post Resurrection of Jesus revelations, which could easily be compared. Paul wrote down what Jesus told him to form the New Testament Church. In turn, the UBook's "sleeper" whose identity is never revealed, created a long legacy of messages which in turn became the UBook. I believe I have come across a commonality in each of these.

You indicated that the Foundation of the Urantia Book considers it a complete revelation, such as the Bible is considered a "complete revelation". Would this make the messages coming from the collective consciousness an "extension" of that "complete revelation", or am I reaching too deep in my analogy. You indicated that James Padgett's messages are still forthcoming after 80 years. Would you consider this an unusual situation for someone reaching into the collective consciousness?

You answered my question about the mediumship when you cited Leviticus about the use of "familiar spirits", but would you consider what is being done with the UBook more along the line of prophecy through the collective consciousnes than the use of "spirits"? This is a delicate matter to me. In the Old Testament, the only way to disern a prophet was if he was 100% correct every time he/she prophesied. How does this apply to those who are contacted by someone from the collective conscious whose intent is sending messages regarding the UBook?  I read the Wikipedia article on The Urantia Book, and found it positive for the most part. The article indicated the positive emotions that the UBook has elicited from people who have read it, but noted it was a heavy dose of science, history, and religion rolled up in over 2,000 pages.

Would it be safe to say that the UBook is a "series of commentaries"? I am sincerely trying to be a frame of reference before I purchase the book and begin reading it.

In my last post, I mentioned the terms "historical saga" and "continous saga". At the time, I had the mental framework that there are books that are "traditional" in nature, and there are books that are "commentary" in nature. This was not meant to be negative towards you. If I was, I do apologize. It is my analytical mind trying to "cut and paste" what I have knowledge of how books are formed, but more so, religious books. For example, the Torah is a "complete revelation" to the Jews, the New Testament, in conjunction with the Torah and Talmud, is considered a "complete revelation", and the Qu"ran is considered by Muslims to be the last and final "complete revelation" of the previous two. So, to get a better "mental image" in my mind about the UBook is to compare these aforementioned "books" in relationship to the "complete revelation"  of the UBook.

When I get my UBook, where do you recommend I start reading? Normally, I read a book from the first page to the last page, so do you think this would work for me? Additionally, if there are continous mediumships that are producing "new information", how does one find the information concerning the "supplements" of the UBook?

Thank you, NothingButLove, for your patience with me. Sometimes I can get wordy. I'm just seeking to understand.

Joseph14
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2008 - 7:36PM #10
NothingButLove
Posts: 715

Joseph14 wrote:


The only book that I can compare to the UBook is the Bible. Perhaps, this is so, because I have read the Bible all my life and it has "slanted", and perhaps, "narrowed" my view of Christ's legacy. You have me thinking about the Pre-Crucifixion Jesus versus the Resurrected Jesus. One living in the flesh, the other living in the Spirit. Then, there's Paul, who comes in the Post Resurrection Jesus, via revelation. I believe I can see an analogy of the revelations of Paul as the analogy of the revelations of the UBook. Both are Post Resurrection of Jesus revelations, which could easily be compared. Paul wrote down what Jesus told him to form the New Testament Church. In turn, the UBook's "sleeper" whose identity is never revealed, created a long legacy of messages which in turn became the UBook. I believe I have come across a commonality in each of these.


I had not thought of that. I am aware of many different attempts by celestials to communicate with us. So I probably have a different perspective. There are amongst the well known one's, Swedenborg, Mormon (Joseph Smith), Course in Miracles, of course Padgett, and Urantia Book, and then a host of other efforts too.

Joseph14 wrote:

You indicated that the Foundation of the Urantia Book considers it a complete revelation, such as the Bible is considered a "complete revelation". Would this make the messages coming from the collective consciousness an "extension" of that "complete revelation", or am I reaching too deep in my analogy. You indicated that James Padgett's messages are still forthcoming after 80 years. Would you consider this an unusual situation for someone reaching into the collective consciousness?


Hmm you have me puzzled now. I frankly find the whole notion of the idea that Truth can be completed, a very human notion. A series may be appropriate for a time. For example we received a new body of work in January and February which amounted to about 100 messages, and now there is currently nothing at all. The Celestials have finished that mini-project, but they have certainly not finished telling us all they could.

Joseph14 wrote:


You answered my question about the mediumship when you cited Leviticus about the use of "familiar spirits", but would you consider what is being done with the UBook more along the line of prophecy through the collective consciousnes than the use of "spirits"? This is a delicate matter to me.


I appreciate that, but I have come to consider this another restrictive teaching designed to prevent folks bypassing priests in their search for truth. Once one accepts that mediumship is not infallible, and goes about the job of discerning truth sensibly, then I cannot see that any error is ever occasioned by an attempt to communicate with the other realms.There are folks very critical of the Ubook. Make no mistake about it.

Joseph14 wrote:

Would it be safe to say that the UBook is a "series of commentaries"? I am sincerely trying to be a frame of reference before I purchase the book and begin reading it.



The ubook is pretty unique. I find it useful to consider it actually two books in one. Probably form different sources, although that topic is hushed up. The Life of Christ, and the rest.  There are part of the Life of Jesus that make my heart sing, and bits where the hair sits up on my neck, and I really dont like what I am reading. Dont like in the sense I do not believe that it is accurate.

Joseph14 wrote:


In my last post, I mentioned the terms "historical saga" and "continous saga". At the time, I had the mental framework that there are books that are "traditional" in nature, and there are books that are "commentary" in nature.

Hmm. I don't easily relate to that framework. 

Joseph14 wrote:

When I get my UBook, where do you recommend I start reading? Normally, I read a book from the first page to the last page, so do you think this would work for me? Additionally, if there are continous mediumships that are producing "new information", how does one find the information concerning the "supplements" of the UBook?


The Teaching Mission has a web site with all their messages. It is not well ordered, being by date and group, as opposed to topic. But I think its fair that I comment on what I think is significant. The Urantia Book is not in my view a religious book per se. It does not specifically set out the way to develop your self spiritually. These new messages do, and introduce concepts very similar to those in Padgett, which is in my view religious in nature. This is the notion of stillness - seeking contact with and close connection with the Divine. That aspect I feel is very significant, and it begs the question why this was never in the Urantia Book to begin with. A hard thing to answer, and something I could only speculate on.

Well I think you should let your heart decide where to start. To this day I have not read the whole book. Others have religiously read it through many times, but it can take months to complete the book. its HUGE. And tricky to follow, sometimes I would absolutely swear no human could actually understand some of the sentences, and that irritate me. There is no inherant value in complex structure or abstract language.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook