Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[Caligastia]

I think because it is purported that celestial beings authored it, regardless of who they quote or not, and inasmuch as the Urantia Book accords celestial beings with superior abilities & knowledge to humans, then the implication is any communication errors lie with the human.

 

Communication errors? Sorry, but I'm not following your train of thought...

 

In the passages where Ganid is referenced, the authors give exact times for meetings that Jesus is reported to have attended, and yet they beg-off giving us his exact words, which presumably they know. :) The little aside then attempts to justify this by faulting the reader's ability to understand another age.

 

It's not necessarily that the reader's ability to understand is being faulted, it could also be that our comprehension of the exact words would have been made difficult because they referenced complicated political situations or cultural norms that did not make it into our historical records. This is only a guess, but absent any statement that explicitly faults the reader in this passage I have no reason to assume that is what they are doing.

 

 

Having some experience in teaching, I agree not every crayon takes a fine point in the sharpener, but in the case of these passages under discussion it is a matter of avoiding reporting known facts, i.e. what Jesus said at the meetings. How is it earlier folks might comprehend it, but not we later more developed folks? :) :)

 

Try and reverse the situation. Imagine someone from that era reading a speech (translated of course) from our time - can't you see how confusion might arise due to differences in culture and knowledge?

[Turtle]

Communication errors? Sorry, but I'm not following your train of thought...

 

...Conditions of the twentieth century, prevailing in both religion and human governments, are so different from those prevailing in Jesus' day that it was indeed difficult to adapt the Master's teachings at Urmia to the problems of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men as these world functions are existent in the twentieth century. ...

 

Difficult to adapt = error in communication.

 

It's not necessarily that the reader's ability to understand is being faulted, it could also be that our comprehension of the exact words would have been made difficult because they referenced complicated political situations or cultural norms that did not make it into our historical records. This is only a guess, but absent any statement that explicitly faults the reader in this passage I have no reason to assume that is what they are doing.

 

If we leave it at that, and no reason not to, it is a push, i.e. the meaning is capable of at least 2 equal interpretations. I see that as a complication for a work purporting to instruct.

 

Try and reverse the situation. Imagine someone from that era reading a speech (translated of course) from our time - can't you see how confusion might arise due to differences in culture and knowledge?

Yes of course. However, the situation is not that, and as we humans have evolved, the implication is that we improved our ability to understand, not lessened it. And here again, if one is purporting to instruct, there is no gain in introducing a subject beyond a pupils understanding. :edepress:

[Caligastia]

Difficult to adapt = error in communication.

 

Can't something be difficult to adapt without implying that the reader will be at fault for any misunderstanding?

 

If we leave it at that, and no reason not to, it is a push, i.e. the meaning is capable of at least 2 equal interpretations. I see that as a complication for a work purporting to instruct.

 

Yes of course. However, the situation is not that, and as we humans have evolved, the implication is that we improved our ability to understand, not lessened it. And here again, if one is purporting to instruct, there is no gain in introducing a subject beyond a pupils understanding. :edepress:

 

Another problem with your interpretation is that the UB sees us as having considerably improved over the last 2000 years, so the idea that the revelators believed the people Jesus was speaking to were inherently more able to understand than us does not compute.

 

For this reason, I don't see your interpretation as being equal to mine.:hihi:

[Turtle]

...

Another problem with your interpretation is that the UB sees us as having considerably improved over the last 2000 years, so the idea that the revelators believed the people Jesus was speaking to were inherently more able to understand than us does not compute.

 

For this reason, I don't see your interpretation as being equal to mine.;)

 

It's not my idea; it's what they exactly say in the passage I quoted. What I'm saying is, that if the 'revealators' were really superior beings, then we ought now be better able to understand what Jesus allegedly said at the conference than those who allegedly were present. Yet, the authors claim we can't understand it so they don't give it, i.e. the actual words of Jesus. Remebering they said it was his best stuff, implying the Bibles are second rate and again thrusting themselves to the heralded top of the heap.

 

Well, going back to something earlier discussed in the other thread if I may. You said

Quite simply, I don't believe that human authors are capable of the incredible combination of wisdom, knowledge, and consistency contained in the UB papers.

 

and then I replied

...perhaps you haven't run across the right humans yet

 

Let me introduce you to a contemporary author to Stadler et al, one Mr. Edward Alexander Crowley. Mind you I have only read excerpts of his writings, so I'm not prepared to draw any specific parallels with the Urantia; my purpose is to put your observation in an historical context. :edepress: :hihi:

 

...1904 and after

Crowley said that a mystical experience in 1904, while on holiday in Cairo, Egypt, led to his founding of the religious philosophy known as Thelema. Aleister's wife Rose started to behave in an odd way, and this led Aleister to think that some entity had made contact with her. At her instructions, he performed an invocation of the Egyptian god Horus on March 20 with (he wrote) "great success." According to Crowley, the god told him that a new magical Aeon had begun, and that Crowley would serve as its prophet. Rose continued to give information, telling Crowley in detailed terms to await a further revelation. On 8 April and for the following two days at exactly noon he allegedly heard a voice, dictating the words of the text, Liber AL vel Legis, or The Book of the Law, which Crowley wrote down. The voice claimed to be that of Aiwass (or Aiwaz) "the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat", or Horus, the god of force and fire, child of Isis and Osiris and self-appointed conquering lord of the New Aeon, announced through his chosen scribe "the prince-priest the Beast" (For citations, see main article The Book of the Law).

Aleister Crowley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Caligastia]

It's not my idea; it's what they exactly say in the passage I quoted. What I'm saying is, that if the 'revealators' were really superior beings, then we ought now be better able to understand what Jesus allegedly said at the conference than those who allegedly were present. Yet, the authors claim we can't understand it so they don't give it, i.e. the actual words of Jesus. Remebering they said it was his best stuff, implying the Bibles are second rate and again thrusting themselves to the heralded top of the heap.

 

I used the word "inherently" in an attempt to focus on non-environmental differences. Sorry if that wasn't clear. So, are you saying that the passage in question implies that the people Jesus spoke to were more spiritually advanced and therefore more able to understand? That position is at odds with the entire context of the UB as the latest in a progressive series of revelations of God to man on this planet. I think it's obvious that the concern over the inclusion of this passage was due to some kind of cultural difference - not inherent superiority or inferiority. In fact, if we re-read the passage itself, it explicitly states that:

 

Conditions of the twentieth century, prevailing in both religion and human governments, are so different from those prevailing in Jesus' day that it was indeed difficult to adapt the Master's teachings at Urmia to the problems of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men as these world functions are existent in the twentieth century.

 

Accordingly, we three secondary midwayers completed such an adaptation of Jesus' teachings, restating his pronouncements as we would apply them to present-day world conditions...

 

Well, going back to something earlier discussed in the other thread if I may. You said and then I replied

 

Let me introduce you to a contemporary author to Stadler et al, one Mr. Edward Alexander Crowley. Mind you I have only read excerpts of his writings, so I'm not prepared to draw any specific parallels with the Urantia; my purpose is to put your observation in an historical context.

 

Aleister Crowley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I don't see how this relates to the UB at all. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the complete opposite of what the UB teaches.

[Turtle]

So, are you saying that the passage in question implies that the people Jesus spoke to were more spiritually advanced and therefore more able to understand? That position is at odds with the entire context of the UB as the latest in a progressive series of revelations of God to man on this planet. I think it's obvious that the concern over the inclusion of this passage was due to some kind of cultural difference - not inherent superiority or inferiority.

 

Yes it is at odds. That's why I find it a complication. This is a common stylistic theme in the book, to build up the reader just to shoot them down. The authors repeatedly tell us they know something special secret, but that either we can't understand it or they can't tell us. You & I aren't having any problem discussing the cultural differences in general between now & then (and there & here), and if we had a mind to I'm sure we could get deep into specifics. Yet, the authors don't even make the attempt & they are supposed to have superior ability. :) Again, I see this as a literary/stylistic device to let the hoaxers off the hook of writing Jesus's words.

 

I don't see how this [Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law] relates to the UB at all. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the complete opposite of what the UB teaches.

 

Yes, it is contrary in many specifics. The point is, it was written in the same social milieu as the Urantia Book, and has the same aim to set things right in regard to explaining the spirit world and its connection to the physical world. Coming out in 1904 before Urantia, I expect Sadler & Friends knew of it.

 

This whole period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is full of people attempting what Urantia attempts, that is to forge a unified whole as described by the themes and tone of the Columbia Exposition in regard to bringing together science, religion, and social development. No less Smith's Book of Mormon, or Edgar Cayce the Sleeping Prophet, etcetera, etcetera, ... :confused: :eek:

[Caligastia]

Yes it is at odds. That's why I find it a complication. This is a common stylistic theme in the book, to build up the reader just to shoot them down. The authors repeatedly tell us they know something special secret, but that either we can't understand it or they can't tell us. You & I aren't having any problem discussing the cultural differences in general between now & then (and there & here), and if we had a mind to I'm sure we could get deep into specifics. Yet, the authors don't even make the attempt & they are supposed to have superior ability. :) Again, I see this as a literary/stylistic device to let the hoaxers off the hook of writing Jesus's words.

 

If you read further down in the paper, there is another little side note which sheds more light on our discussion:

 

[While the Master's teaching concerning the sovereignty of God is a truth--only complicated by the subsequent appearance of the religion about him among the world's religions--his presentations concerning political sovereignty are vastly complicated by the political evolution of nation life during the last nineteen hundred years and more. In the times of Jesus there were only two great world powers--the Roman Empire in the West and the Han Empire in the East--and these were widely separated by the Parthian kingdom and other intervening lands of the Caspian and Turkestan regions. We have, therefore, in the following presentation departed more widely from the substance of the Master's teachings at Urmia concerning political sovereignty, at the same time attempting to depict the import of such teachings as they are applicable to the peculiarly critical stage of the evolution of political sovereignty in the twentieth century after Christ.]

 

My interpretation of this is that the revelators clearly wanted to adapt what Jesus said regarding political sovereignty the present to avoid misinterpretations that would likely have occurred had the original words been repeated. No doubt you'll take this as yet another insult to our intelligence...I see it as an extra effort to make clear to us the principles Jesus wanted to explain - which is consistent with the rest of the book. For some reason you choose to believe in imaginary insults that contradict everything else in the book.

 

 

Yes, it is contrary in many specifics. The point is, it was written in the same social milieu as the Urantia Book, and has the same aim to set things right in regard to explaining the spirit world and its connection to the physical world. Coming out in 1904 before Urantia, I expect Sadler & Friends knew of it.

 

This whole period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is full of people attempting what Urantia attempts, that is to forge a unified whole as described by the themes and tone of the Columbia Exposition in regard to bringing together science, religion, and social development. No less Smith's Book of Mormon, or Edgar Cayce the Sleeping Prophet, etcetera, etcetera, ... :confused: :eek:

 

Interesting...sounds like it was the perfect time for God to reveal greater truth to mankind in these areas. The fact that this time in history was characterized by the search for unification of science, religion, and social development shows that we were ready to receive our next revelation.

 

Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world's history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man's capacity of receptivity.

[Turtle]

If you read further down in the paper, there is another little side note which sheds more light on our discussion:

...

My interpretation of this is that the revelators clearly wanted to adapt what Jesus said regarding political sovereignty the present to avoid misinterpretations that would likely have occurred had the original words been repeated. No doubt you'll take this as yet another insult to our intelligence...I see it as an extra effort to make clear to us the principles Jesus wanted to explain - which is consistent with the rest of the book. For some reason you choose to believe in imaginary insults that contradict everything else in the book.

 

See, we get back to interpretation again. Why? Because the writing is obscured. That I continue to hold that it is intentionally obscured is in keeping with the premise of this thread. The insults aren't imaginary, just backhanded.

 

Interesting...sounds like it was the perfect time for God to reveal greater truth to mankind in these areas. The fact that this time in history was characterized by the search for unification of science, religion, and social development shows that we were ready to receive our next revelation.

 

Clearly Sadler felt the same. Who better to do the job right than an expert debunker, well aware of the pitfalls, and his carefully chosen panel? So it goes. :confused:

[Caligastia]

See, we get back to interpretation again. Why? Because the writing is obscured. That I continue to hold that it is intentionally obscured is in keeping with the premise of this thread. The insults aren't imaginary, just backhanded.

 

You present an impossible challenge to any spiritual being attempting to provide you with advanced and uplifting information. Can you tell me how they could have done a better job of it, while still conveying the infinite enormity of what we don't know? The fact that we have so much to learn about the universe and so much growing to do should be seen as the most exciting challenge ever. Despite the numerous words of love and encouragement in the UB, you choose to feel slighted by the fact that there are things we are incapable of understanding at this time.

 

My 2.5 year-old son also doesn’t like it when I can't explain to him why he can’t drive the family car. I would love for him to be able to understand how licensing and road rules work, but I know it would be pointless to explain it to him at his age. The best I can do is tell him that he will understand when he gets older.

 

 

Clearly Sadler felt the same. Who better to do the job right than an expert debunker, well aware of the pitfalls, and his carefully chosen panel? So it goes. :confused:

 

Interesting take on it, but a lot of great reasons why human authorship would have been impossibly difficult have already been posted in this thread.

[Turtle]

We are drifting off my original OP, and possibily heading for another of those nasty dust-offs sprinkled throughout this thread. Been there, done that. So if I may, here again, my instigating Observation Post of some 3 years past:

 

___The Urantia Book, first published in the early 1950's, purports to contain discertations delivered by "angels" on God, creation, science, spirits, Jesus, etc.. At some 3,000 plus pages it's no easy read! :)

___So I want to know if you have heard of it? Read it? Have an opinion on it?

___I believe it is a hoax for the record so my question is "who could have hoaxed this?". Even though it was published in the 50's, it seems to have been written earlier; possibly in the 30's. By the writing style which is so cleverly convolute, & the broadness of the topics covered, I tend to think it is the work of an enclave rather than a single author.

___I do heartily recommend people read it in any case because it is if nothing else a very fine work of mystical science fiction. :eek:

 

Addendum: 30,000+ hits on Urantia

 

The question is answered to my satisfaction by the information introduced here, i.e Sadler et al could have hoaxed this. :confused:

[Turtle]

...

Personally, I'm much more interested in the psychology behind the decision of people to surrender their critical thinking to these types of authoritative scriptures. But I imagine that is for another thread, and I respect Turtle's desire to stay on topic here.

 

You're a peach Reason. :P The thread on Complications & Contradictions is intended to catch whatever Urantia material doesn't fit here with the authorship question. As to the 'decision' to surrender critical thinking, I rather like this newish view. >> Biotheology

[Turtle]

I am not desperate for eternity, and many others are not either. Eternity may simply be a fact of spiritual progression no different than a caterpillar changing to a butterfly or a tadpole to a frog, and it also just might have something to do with Faith.

Cults come in all forms, some are bigger than others and some are mainstream and some not. Christianity is a cult no different than Urantia or Hypography.com. It is neither positive nor negative, it just simply is. There are of course negative cults depending on your definition or standards, but, Urantia certainly does not qualify as one in most accepted definitions of negative.

 

Again, we have drifted here from the authorship aspect; it may be fruitless, but I would like to see us use the proper thread for responses.>> http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/14313-urantia-book-complications-contradictions.html I'll pick up over there later with the negative aspect in regards to the eugenics espoused by the book. :thumbs_do

[Moontanman]

Who could have hoaxed this? So far I haven't seen anything from the book that couldn't have been hoaxed by almost anyone who could read and had an imagination. The burden of proof lies on the book of urantia and it's followers. So far all we get is quotes from the book and misdirections from the followers of the book.

[Turtle]

.........."Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book. However, the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book. (McMenamin 1998: 174)

 

...

 

The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176)

 

Emphasis mine. I keep learning the darndest things about the authors here in this thread. Interesting in light of my assertion that a negative aspect of Urantia writings is unabashed eugenics. Nazis ya say? This makes Indiana Jones scripts look sophomoric. :hihi: Start writing your screenplay MoonTanMan. ....

[Majeston]

I think everyone is familiar with Wegener 's contribution. You have missed McMenamin point as well as what the Urantia papers are about. Certainly McMenamin was aware of Wegener's "theory". Perhaps you might compare the Urantia depiction of events and those theorized by Wegener in the publication you mention, and IIRC his work was not translated into English until much later, I could be wrong.

As stated above in the mandate...."

Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge.........

 

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.

2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.

3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.

4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.

5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

 

The Urantia revelation is written in such a way as to illuminate that which is correct or to correct earned knowledge which has error in it. This has been published by Matthew Block in a series of human sources in the Urantia book.

An interesting statistical study was done by Phil Calabrese PhD at the following location.....

Untitled Document

 

with the statistical result.....

 

So given human authorship of the Urantia Book, the combined probability of all of these happening by chance (or by generally following the contemporary scientific beliefs) is

 

 

 

≤ (1/50)(1/40)(1/50)(1/100)(1/100)(1/5)(1/5)(1/4)

 

≤ 1/100,000,000,000 = less than 1 chance in 100 billion,

 

 

 

a very unlikely event! Many other examples exist reducing this probability even more. Some estimates might be raised and some lowered, but the result will be the same, an event with very small probability given human authorship.

 

 

 

Superhuman Authorship. A sequence of likely pitfalls and unpopular positions and other positions can hardly ALL turn out well without superhuman authorship. There are no obvious systematic scientific blunders even though it takes some initially implausible positions. On the other hand given superhuman authorship all this becomes likely. Therefore the Urantia Book had superhuman authors.

[Moontanman]

I think everyone is familiar with Wegener 's contribution. You have missed McMenamin point as well as what the Urantia papers are about. Certainly McMenamin was aware of Wegener's "theory". Perhaps you might compare the Urantia depiction of events and those theorized by Wegener in the publication you mention, and IIRC his work was not translated into English until much later, I could be wrong.

As stated above in the mandate...."

Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge.........

 

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.

2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.

3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.

4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.

5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

 

The Urantia revelation is written in such a way as to illuminate that which is correct or to correct earned knowledge which has error in it. This has been published by Matthew Block in a series of human sources in the Urantia book.

An interesting statistical study was done by Phil Calabrese PhD at the following location.....

Untitled Document

 

with the statistical result.....

 

So given human authorship of the Urantia Book, the combined probability of all of these happening by chance (or by generally following the contemporary scientific beliefs) is

 

 

 

≤ (1/50)(1/40)(1/50)(1/100)(1/100)(1/5)(1/5)(1/4)

 

≤ 1/100,000,000,000 = less than 1 chance in 100 billion,

 

 

 

a very unlikely event! Many other examples exist reducing this probability even more. Some estimates might be raised and some lowered, but the result will be the same, an event with very small probability given human authorship.

 

 

 

Superhuman Authorship. A sequence of likely pitfalls and unpopular positions and other positions can hardly ALL turn out well without superhuman authorship. There are no obvious systematic scientific blunders even though it takes some initially implausible positions. On the other hand given superhuman authorship all this becomes likely. Therefore the Urantia Book had superhuman authors.

 

Aren't you putting the horse before the cart by assuming all these things are true? I mean how can you tell which things are true because of some sort of superhuman knowledge being imparted and the things that are simply copied from science. Which truths are you putting in your column and which ones are not part of the prophesy. Counting everything the book claims cannot be put into such a probability to do so assumes everything in the book is correct and we know that isn't true. Most are yet to be proved either way and the others are either false or copied from available science.

[Caligastia]

My hats off to you Caligastia, you have a better sense of humor than I would have thought!

 

Thanks for the props...unfortunately this hasn't stopped me from getting neg reps from some people.

 

I think this thread has drifted off topic somewhat. Rather than going back and forth with arguments about science, we should be talking about the authorship of the UB. I haven't seen any evidence that Sadler or a group of his authored the papers, but I'd like to explore the idea of human authorship. For those who presuppose this, I have a question:

 

Keeping in mind the enormous challenge this presented, what do you think would motivate a human or group of humans to write the UB?