Yes, there are some reports here: List of UBtheNEWS reports, [research pages], and study aids – UBannotated
Upvote
0
Taking Questions on Creationism
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
- Status
Yes, there are some reports here: List of UBtheNEWS reports, [research pages], and study aids – UBannotated
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Care to be more specific? Is this answering my point about the authors being unknown? Is it about scientific information in the book? If so, can you point out a specific example of what claim was made in the Urantia book was unknown to science at the time and then the discovery in science that verified it?
Upvote
0
Adam and Eve arrive on a previously populated earth 38,000+ BC
UBtheNEWS Adam and Eve Report – UBannotated
UBtheNEWS Adam and Eve Report – UBannotated
Upvote
0
Actually, it doesn't say "son". Notice that "the son" is in italics. In the KJV, that means it was added by the translators. Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Joseph was the son of Jacob: Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
The mistake is NOT God's but the mortal translators.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David, which the messiah had to be according to prophecy. In its simplest form, Matthew was showing Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David through His earthly (although non-biological) father Joseph, and Luke was showing His actual blood right to the throne through Mary.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kylie, you have a "yea-but" for everything because you lack sincerity. Each report shows what the UB said in 1955 (earlier but that's when the papers were published) and compares it with science that is not connected to anyone in the UB community. AIG is just quack crap! 1/2 truths spun by biased "creationist scientist" who work for AIG.
Just take the report and do your own investigation. Unless of coarse you don't really want the answer?
Upvote
0
You may find this interesting. One would naturally think that a book purported to be a "new revelation" about God and Jesus would seek to "justify" and support previous assumptions within Christianity. The UB doesn't always do that. In some ways yes, but on issues such as desperately trying to put Jesus in the genetic line of David it doesn't. It even says that Joseph and Mary were married and conceived Jesus, their first born, the natural way. However, the Son of God becoming the person of Mary's baby at conception was the miracle of miracles known only in the councils of paradise.
But to this issue of Jesus' relation to David consider this:
JOSEPH'S DREAM
122:4.2 In all these visitations nothing was said about the house of David. Nothing was ever intimated about Jesus' becoming a “deliverer of the Jews," not even that he was to be the long-expected Messiah. Jesus was not such a Messiah as the Jews had anticipated, but he was the world's deliverer. His mission was to all races and peoples, not to any one group.
122:4.3 Joseph was not of the line of King David. Mary had more of the Davidic ancestry than Joseph. True, Joseph did go to the City of David, Bethlehem, to be registered for the Roman census, but that was because, six generations previously, Joseph's paternal ancestor of that generation, being an orphan, was adopted by one Zadoc, who was a direct descendant of David; hence was Joseph also accounted as of the “house of David.”
122:4.4 Most of the so-called Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were made to apply to Jesus long after his life had been lived on earth. For centuries the Hebrew prophets had proclaimed the coming of a deliverer, and these promises had been construed by successive generations as referring to a new Jewish ruler who would sit upon the throne of David and, by the reputed miraculous methods of Moses, proceed to establish the Jews in Palestine as a powerful nation, free from all foreign domination. Again, many figurative passages found throughout the Hebrew scriptures were subsequently misapplied to the life mission of Jesus. Many Old Testament sayings were so distorted as to appear to fit some episode of the Master's earth life. Jesus himself onetime publicly denied any connection with the royal house of David. Even the passage, “a maiden shall bear a son,” was made to read, “a virgin shall bear a son.” This was also true of the many genealogies of both Joseph and Mary which were constructed subsequent to Michael's career on earth. Many of these lineages contain much of the Master's ancestry, but on the whole they are not genuine and may not be depended upon as factual. The early followers of Jesus all too often succumbed to the temptation to make all the olden prophetic utterances appear to find fulfillment in the life of their Lord and Master.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
"The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42)."
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
This is a 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument. If the genealogies of Matthew and Luke had agreed, Christians would rightly point to the agreement as evidence that the Bible in general and the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus in particular are historically accurate and reliable. However, even though the genealogies do not agree, even on the name of Joseph's father, some Christians still claim that both of them are accurate, rather than admitting that at least one of them must be wrong. This sort of argument is more likely to discredit the people who use it than to convince unbelievers of the historical truth of the Bible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There is NO original word but instead, the thoughts of the King James translators, That is why it's in italics. I have two "sons" or sons in Law. The giveaway is the Scriptural fact that Joseph is the son of Jacob. He was the son in Law of Heli.
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
