What “really” happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus?

Recently on a “Christian” philosphical mailing list, the question was asked “what happened to Jesus earthly dad, Joseph?”.

My response to this was; “we suppose that He died some time before Jesus was 30, but after he was 12, but we do not really know since there is no record extant in history to tell us”.

This is how I understand it, and from a quick “googling” it appears that this is the fairly standard view.

HOWEVER.. my friends the Jesusonians also posted from their book, which is what I replied to. That is to say, the question was asked, they responded, then I responded.

This is what the Urantia Book (otherwise known as the “Fifth Epochal Revelation of Truth”) has to say:

Page 1388 2. THE DEATH OF JOSEPH

 

” All did go well until that fateful day of Tuesday, September 25,

[A.D. 8] when a runner from Sepphoris brought to this Nazareth home

the tragic news that Joseph [a building contractor] had been severely

injured by the falling of a derrick while at work on the governor’s

residence. The messenger from Sepphoris had stopped at the shop on the

way to Joseph’s home, informing Jesus of his father’s accident, and

they went together to the house to break the sad news to Mary. Jesus

desired to go immediately to his father, but Mary would hear to

nothing but that she must hasten to her husband’s side. She directed

that James, then ten years of age, should accompany her to Sepphoris

while Jesus remained home with the younger children [Jesus then had

seven brothers and sisters, all younger than Jesus] until she should

return, as she did not know how seriously Joseph had been injured. But

Joseph died of his injuries before Mary arrived. They brought him to

Nazareth, and on the following day he was laid to rest with his fathers.

Just at the time when prospects were good and the future looked

bright, an apparently cruel hand struck down the head of this Nazareth

household, the affairs of this home were disrupted, and every plan for

Jesus and his future education was demolished. This carpenter lad, now

just past fourteen years of age, [He Incarnated here August 21, 7

B.C.] awakened to the realization that he had not only to fulfill the

commission of his heavenly Father to reveal the divine nature on earth

and in the flesh, but that his young human nature must also shoulder

the responsibility of caring for his widowed mother and seven brothers

and sisters–and another yet to be born. This lad of Nazareth now

became the sole support and comfort of this so suddenly bereaved

family. Thus were permitted those occurrences of the natural order of

events on Urantia which would force this young man of destiny so early

to assume these heavy but highly educational and disciplinary

responsibilities attendant upon becoming the head of a human family,

of becoming father to his own brothers and sisters, of supporting and

protecting his mother, of functioning as guardian of his father’s

home, the only home he was to know while on this world.

Jesus cheerfully accepted the responsibilities so suddenly thrust

upon him, and he carried them faithfully to the end. At least one

great problem and anticipated difficulty in his life had been

tragically solved–he would not now be expected to go to Jerusalem to

study under the rabbis. It remained always true that Jesus “sat at no

man’s feet.” He was ever willing to learn from even the humblest of

little children, but he never derived authority to teach truth from

human sources.”

So, basically this is conjecture and made up. The “source” of this information is extra terrestrial beings who are channelling the information via an unknown man named “the sleeping subject” back in the 30s. It was recorded and compiled by a Dr William Sadler, a member of an extreme sect of the SDA Church at the time, and a “reknown” debunker of paranormal until he discovered this “sleeping subject”.

So, here is one error contined within this so called “revelation of truth” which is meant to supercede the Bible. My response above caused my message to the mailing list to be blocked with the retort:

 I gave you the record of the authoritative Fifth Epochal Revelation of Truth. Many Christians, including myself, believe this.
The Bible saying nothing on this can not invalidate it.

Of course, the issue is not whether the Bible says anything or not, there is just no contemporary record from history what-so-ever, just conjecture from later authors. There are even more problems with the author’s response (he calls himself a “supernal reality educator”), but you know, I dont know if I can be bothered :P

Either the “Fifth Epochal Revelation of Truth” can stand on its own two feet, or it can not.


Post By Geoff (50 Posts)

I live in New Zealand, am an ICT Engineer for Rhema Broadcasting Group (http://rbg.co.nz), and have a Bachelor of Ministries degree from the Bible College of New Zealand (Now called Laidlaw College, http://www.laidlaw.ac.nz) I can be IM'd at geoff at gurutoo dot com.

Website: →

Connect

28 thoughts on What “really” happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus?

  1. Joel :
    The Jesusonians? hahahahhaha

    yup, thats what they call themselves.

    The most recent comment was:

    You are welcome to post here as a Bible-only believing Christian. However, you must allow that only 1/3 of Christians today in the West are fully Bible-believing. 2/3 say the Bible is incomplete and partly inspired with human elements added. I am in that 2/3 group as most here in the C-P group are.

    Do you believe that Jesus disappeared from all human sight and interactions when He was ages 12-30 ? That’s what you must assume if you think the Bible is the complete and final “Word of God”.

    If you want this world to retain the deep spiritual Truths such as John 1:1-18 and to eventually defeat the atheists, secular-humanist liberals, new agers, anti-Christians, then you should welcome this tremendous Revelation. I have studied it carefully daily for over 35 years to date and have continual personal God-consciousness in our One Holy Father-Son-Spirit of Truth that confirms fully this Revelation. I am an ambassador of Jesus; and I am here to help insure that every human will eventually embrace Him. But not the Jewish, Persian, Mithraic, Egyptian, etc. Theological errors in the Christian Bible that are of humans and not of Jesus.

    *sigh*

  2. I like this comment I got back today;

    I reject your views and you reject mine; but I desire to share this with you in Spirit and in Truth.

    I doubt if you will become fully objective to the continual Spirit leading of Truth in your physical lifetime here. When you are re-personalized up on the next mansion world sphere (Heaven) made by Jesus Christ for our continuing rehabilitation; you will likely feel remorse as you learn that The Urantia Book is a true Fifth Epochal Revelation made to insure the progress and success of Jesusonian Christianity on Earth (Urantia). There will be one world religion here; and you should not fight against the Revealed Truth authorized by the Paradise Father and our Creator Son of God Jesus here fully in Spirit. It will be True, Living, Vibrant, Personally God-conscious Christianity believed worldwide by the vast majority. This may be 500 to 2000 more years, depending on how sincerely and in Spirit of Truth we evangelize the world for Jesus. Of course, if one or more high Sons and/or Agents of God decide to incarnate and teach, it could be much faster.

    To see what is required for Christianity to win here; peruse carefully Paper 195, especially the last half. Here it is:

    http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-195-after-pentecost

    Peace and progress in Spirit and in Father-Son Truth, ….

    LOL

  3. Someone wrote:
    >So, basically this is conjecture and made up.

    And you know that, how exactly? It’s not conjecture at all. It comes from the records that God’s angels keep. They don’t just sit around on clouds playing Christian songs on harps, you know.

    > The “source” of this information is extra terrestrial beings

    The source of the information is God’s angels. Are angels “extraterrestrial beings” in your religion?

    > who are channelling the information via an unknown man named “the sleeping subject” back in the 30s.

    Yes, all the magic happened back then, but the book was not “channeled.” No one knows how it was done.

    > It was recorded and compiled by a Dr William Sadler, a member of an extreme sect of the SDA Church at the time,

    Not true. Prior to these events Dr. Sadler was a mainline SDA minister. Who said it was “an extreme sect of the SDA Church”? Where are you getting this information? From some Christian site? Twisting the truth is really no better than lying.

    > and a “reknown” debunker of paranormal until he discovered this “sleeping subject”.

    If you would like to read a good account of what happened, it’s here: http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm

    • Ooh, good, one comes out of the woodwork.

      Furchizedek :
      Someone wrote:
      >So, basically this is conjecture and made up.
      And you know that, how exactly? It’s not conjecture at all. It comes from the records that God’s angels keep. They don’t just sit around on clouds playing Christian songs on harps, you know.

      They also dont keep records, or pass on information that is irrelevant, pointless, etc etc.

      > The “source” of this information is extra terrestrial beings
      The source of the information is God’s angels. Are angels “extraterrestrial beings” in your religion?

      Yep;
      A being originating from outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, from space, or from another planet; an alien; Originating from outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, from space, or from another planet; alien to Earth or its environment
      en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extra-terrestrial

      > who are channelling the information via an unknown man named “the sleeping subject” back in the 30s.
      Yes, all the magic happened back then, but the book was not “channeled.” No one knows how it was done.

      Of course we know how it was done. There is an institute in England who reproduce (and debunk) this all the time.
      If Mr Sadler was around now he would not be able to do this again.

      > It was recorded and compiled by a Dr William Sadler, a member of an extreme sect of the SDA Church at the time,
      Not true. Prior to these events Dr. Sadler was a mainline SDA minister. Who said it was “an extreme sect of the SDA Church”? Where are you getting this information? From some Christian site? Twisting the truth is really no better than lying.

      No, I got it from historical research, and from people who had been followers (and scholars) of the UB.

      > and a “reknown” debunker of paranormal until he discovered this “sleeping subject”.
      If you would like to read a good account of what happened, it’s here: http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm

      Yeah… I read it.. several times.
      “Automatic writing” – which is what Sadler could not debunk, is not considered paranormal any more. There are medical, psychoanalytic and scientific explanations for it. Things which, had he been alive today, would have prevented him from being able to forge this book.
      Unless of course, he kept the subject secret, and refused to allow anyone else to investigate his claims (outside of his cronies).
      Of course, he didnt abuse his position of trust as one of the worlds most respected debunker of paranormal to forward hhis own claims.. nooooooooooo

  4. Alright, have it your way. Continue on through life in your smug certainty, and for God’s sake, don’t read The Urantia Book. It’s quite curious what smug certainty can do to some people. Some even rejected Jesus, the divine Son of God, in their smug certainty, and then they engineered his murder. That’s what thinking you know it all leads to. Good luck.

  5. Furchizedek :
    Alright, have it your way. Continue on through life in your smug certainty, and for God’s sake, don’t read The Urantia Book. It’s quite curious what smug certainty can do to some people. Some even rejected Jesus, the divine Son of God, in their smug certainty, and then they engineered his murder. That’s what thinking you know it all leads to. Good luck.

    So, throw your hands in the air, go ad hominem and basically accuse me of murder.

    ps, I have read the urantia book – well.. most of it.. havent found anything in it original, or worth repeating.

  6. I haven’t accused you of murder. I’m just saying that human nature hasn’t changed. The same mind-set that can reject Jesus, a divine being can reject The Urantia Book. And the same devices can be used. “We knew his mother and father and his brothers and sisters (not an exact quote) so how can he be the Messiah?” Everyone has a history to be used against them, even Jesus. I think you said Sadler was a member of “an extreme sect of the SDA Church.” Where did you get that from? Seriously, would you please quote the source about the “extreme sect”? It’s simply wrong, to the best of my knowledge. And now you say you, “havent found anything in it original, or worth repeating”? It’s hard to dispute what must be your own subjective statement, but it’s been my experience that what this sort of thing boils down to with Christians is, “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what I believe.” “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what my sect of Christianity says the bible says.” And so on.

    The only reason I’m here is because I have a “Google Alert” for the term “Urantia,” and your blog came up on one of them. Anyway, here’s all I can offer. I am a long time reader/believer. My grandmother gave me a book in 1959 when I was 16. I lived in Minneapolis at that time, she lived in Chicago. She was involved with the original “contact” group. In fact, she was the CPA (accountant) for the Urantia Foundation in the early 1950s through the 1960s. Most of the people involved were professional people. Dr. Sadler, by the way, not only was a former SDA minister, but as you may know, he was a surgeon, a psychiatrist, a writer, and a lecturer, and of course, a family man. If you have read the “History” then you know this. If you have any honest questions about The Urantia Book I would be happy to try to answer them as best I can. Then there are people who need “proof,” the “signs and wonders” crowd. They need signs and wonders or they will not believe. You know, Jesus said that. Here’s something along those lines, a sort of teaser-tidbit, imo, that you might be interested in following up. (Or not.) In the book, it says, 41:3.5 “The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572.” That was the famous supernova of Tycho Brahe (named after him at least). “Double” means “binary.” So it was a binary star explosion, a type 1a supernova where one star in a two star system accretes material from the other until it blows. The Urantia Book was printed in 1955. The 2200 nickel plates were cast some years earlier and stored in the vaults of the printing company. So here we have a categorical statement in the book concerning a particular type 1a supernova. The question is, when did “modern science” know enough to declare the supernova of 1572 to be a type 1a supernova, a binary star explosion? Perhaps you can do some Googling and see if you can find out when “modern science” knew for a fact what The Urantia Book declared as fact in 1955. OK, take care. I am at if anyone wants to write privately.

  7. I included my email address in the previous comment but apparently the blog machinery took it out. I would be happy to have this conversation by email if anyone is interested, rather than here. But here is fine too.

  8. Actually, the Urantia Book is wrong because it is full of factual, scientific, and theological errors. These are quite well documented, it has got nothing to do with whether I am a Christian or not, its just wrong.

    So, you can show that perhaps ONE thing that the UB says is correct.. goodness, I’m a science fiction fan and know that many science fiction writers have made science claims which have come to be proven true. That does not make their books a revelation from God, Gods, or aliens.

    In fact, a closer inspection of this “claim” is nothing special.

    The first claim: a double star exploded and was seen on earth in 1572.

    the second claim: This was known in 1572 (that it was a binary star) and reported as such in the UB in 1955 (or so).

    Third claim: Claim #2 means that the UB knew something that was unknown to the science at the time (1955)

    Rebuttal:
    Claim #1: so?
    Claim #2: The UB said “double star” not binary, nor 1a supernova or anything similar. So this claim is false.
    Claim #3: the term “Binary star” was coined in 1802 and was not therefore knew. It was a term in use for more than a century before the UB was written, therefore claim #3 is false, which on its own negates claim #2.

    The UB isnt flash my friend. There is nothing terribly special about it other than it was a fairly creative work of man

    • I’m sorry if this formatting turns out badly.

      >Geoff [quote] Actually, the Urantia Book is wrong because it is full of factual, scientific, and theological errors. These are quite well documented,[/quote]

      Oh really? Well, in the first place no one has ever said it was infallible or “God’s Word.” In the second place, you make your statement but you provide no “errors.” Can you provide some? We can talk about them only if you can be specific. And how can you prove there are “theological errors”?

      >[quote] it has got nothing to do with whether I am a Christian or not, its just wrong.[/quote]

      LOL. OK, I think I see. “It’s just wrong!” Marvelous. Listen, should we both just cut our time losses here? We don’t have to have any more conversation about any of this. It’s OK with me, if you want to quit it’s no problem.

      >[quote]So, you can show that perhaps ONE thing that the UB says is correct.. [/quote]

      It’s essentially all correct. You’re the one claiming errors. Present them. (And again, no one is saying the book is error free, but it’s sure light years ahead of the “bible.”)

      >[quote] goodness, I’m a science fiction fan and know that many science fiction writers have made science claims which have come to be proven true. That does not make their books a revelation from God, Gods, or aliens.[/quote]

      I’m not following you. The claim that the bible is “God’s Word” also doesn’t mean that claim is true.

      >[quote]In fact, a closer inspection of this “claim” is nothing special. The first claim: a double star exploded and was seen on earth in 1572.[/quote]

      That’s not a claim. That’s a fact. You can Google it, just type “supernova 1572.” Have you not heard of it before?

      >[quote]the second claim: This was known in 1572 (that it was a binary star)[/quote]

      No, it’s not any claim I made that this was known in 1572 that it was a binary star. Perhaps you misunderstood. It was NOT known to be a double star explosion in 1572.

      >[quote] and reported as such in the UB in 1955 (or so).[/quote]

      Yes, that’s right.

      >[quote]Third claim: Claim #2 means that the UB knew something that was unknown to the science at the time (1955)[/quote]

      Yes, that’s the way it appears.

      >[quote]Claim #1: so?
      Claim #2: The UB said “double star” not binary, nor 1a supernova or anything similar. So this claim is false.[/quote]

      No, actually the terms “double star” and “binary star” are interchangeable. They mean the exact same thing. If you have a dictionary, look up “double” and look up “binary.” And a “type 1a” supernova is a double or “binary” star explosion. I’m thinking that you don’t know enough about this subject to debate it. No offense intended.

      >[quote]Claim #3: the term “Binary star” was coined in 1802 and was not therefore knew. It was a term in use for more than a century before the UB was written, therefore claim #3 is false, which on its own negates claim #2.
      The UB isnt flash my friend. There is nothing terribly special about it other than it was a fairly creative work of man[/quote]

      Um, I never said anything about the term “binary star” not being known. I also don’t know what you mean when you say, “The UB isnt flash my friend.” What is “flash”?

      So, OK, I’ll end my post here. Take care. No hard feelings. We’re not communicating well enough to continue.

  9. Furchizedek :
    I’m sorry if this formatting turns out badly.
    >Geoff [quote] Actually, the Urantia Book is wrong because it is full of factual, scientific, and theological errors. These are quite well documented,[/quote]
    Oh really? Well, in the first place no one has ever said it was infallible or “God’s Word.” In the second place, you make your statement but you provide no “errors.” Can you provide some? We can talk about them only if you can be specific. And how can you prove there are “theological errors”?

    And yet the claim is that it is a better and more complete revelation of truth _than_ God’s word. That makes it better than God. See the problems? (theological error 1: nothing is better than God. Error 2: Jesus is God, therefore nothing is better (or higher) than Jesus. The UB claims there are higher beings than Jesus).

    I’ve already pointed out one error.. and now 2 theological ones.. so.. try again.

    >[quote] it has got nothing to do with whether I am a Christian or not, its just wrong.[/quote]
    LOL. OK, I think I see. “It’s just wrong!” Marvelous. Listen, should we both just cut our time losses here? We don’t have to have any more conversation about any of this. It’s OK with me, if you want to quit it’s no problem.

    I’m not quitting. I dont have anything to quit about.

    >[quote]So, you can show that perhaps ONE thing that the UB says is correct.. [/quote]
    It’s essentially all correct. You’re the one claiming errors. Present them. (And again, no one is saying the book is error free, but it’s sure light years ahead of the “bible.”)

    There’s that theological (and factual) error again.

    >[quote] goodness, I’m a science fiction fan and know that many science fiction writers have made science claims which have come to be proven true. That does not make their books a revelation from God, Gods, or aliens.[/quote]
    I’m not following you. The claim that the bible is “God’s Word” also doesn’t mean that claim is true.

    Straw man. I have never said that to you, apart from in this post.

    >[quote]In fact, a closer inspection of this “claim” is nothing special. The first claim: a double star exploded and was seen on earth in 1572.[/quote]
    That’s not a claim. That’s a fact. You can Google it, just type “supernova 1572.” Have you not heard of it before?
    >[quote]the second claim: This was known in 1572 (that it was a binary star)[/quote]
    No, it’s not any claim I made that this was known in 1572 that it was a binary star. Perhaps you misunderstood. It was NOT known to be a double star explosion in 1572.

    They did not know it was a binary/double star in 1572. No one did.

    >[quote] and reported as such in the UB in 1955 (or so).[/quote]
    Yes, that’s right.
    >[quote]Third claim: Claim #2 means that the UB knew something that was unknown to the science at the time (1955)[/quote]
    Yes, that’s the way it appears.

    ok, So I am right so far. The UB makes false claims about the universe or at least, ones that it assumes people wont be able to refute, except, Sadler didnt foresee the internet.

    >[quote]Claim #1: so?
    Claim #2: The UB said “double star” not binary, nor 1a supernova or anything similar. So this claim is false.[/quote]
    No, actually the terms “double star” and “binary star” are interchangeable. They mean the exact same thing. If you have a dictionary, look up “double” and look up “binary.” And a “type 1a” supernova is a double or “binary” star explosion. I’m thinking that you don’t know enough about this subject to debate it. No offense intended.

    LOL.
    The UB used the term “double star” – we NOW know that a double star is also a binary, etc.. The UB didnt use the term, and it might have had some significance if it did, since the terms did not exist then. The name and concept “double star” DID exist, and had done for 130+ years.

    >[quote]Claim #3: the term “Binary star” was coined in 1802 and was not therefore knew. It was a term in use for more than a century before the UB was written, therefore claim #3 is false, which on its own negates claim #2.
    The UB isnt flash my friend. There is nothing terribly special about it other than it was a fairly creative work of man[/quote]
    Um, I never said anything about the term “binary star” not being known. I also don’t know what you mean when you say, “The UB isnt flash my friend.” What is “flash”?
    So, OK, I’ll end my post here. Take care. No hard feelings. We’re not communicating well enough to continue.

    The UB claims to have “inside” knowledge that a “bright star” seen in 1572 was a binary supernova. The claim is that this was not something that could have been known by the UB writers. lol.

    Of course, that seems to miss the point that the term “supernova” existed for half a century before the UB.
    REALLY.
    You people dont investigate your stuff very well. Christians and non Christians have, and still do painstakingly investigate every word, every dot, every comma, every thing.. that is in the Bible. After 2000 years it still stands up, and yet the UB cant stand up to wikipedia.

    “Not flash” means “not very good”, in New Zealand if someone has a car accident and their car is a write off, the car “isn’t flash”.

  10. You wrote: “And yet the claim is that it is a better and more complete revelation of truth _than_ God’s word. That makes it better than God. See the problems?”

    First, that claim is not made in The Urantia Book. It’s probably true, but it’s only someone’s opinion. The Urantia Book does not say it, to my knowledge. Also, it’s poor of you to say, “The claim is made…” without citing the claim or who made it. If someone had an opinion about the bible would that make it true? Second, here’s your basic error upon which all your other assumptions are built like a house of cards, and that is your belief that the bible is “God’s Word,” even to the point of confusing the bible with God himself. These are your beliefs. See the problem? You are confusing your beliefs with actual reality. Your basic error also equates out to the very thing that I stated earlier that, “it’s been my experience that what this sort of thing boils down to with Christians is, “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what I believe.” “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what my sect of Christianity says the bible says.” I stated that early on. Why did it take so long to get it out? And last but not least, while the technical definition for angels may well be “extra-terrestrials,” there is NO WAY that I believe that you call them that or that you think of angels in that way.

  11. Furchizedek :
    You wrote: “And yet the claim is that it is a better and more complete revelation of truth _than_ God’s word. That makes it better than God. See the problems?”
    First, that claim is not made in The Urantia Book. It’s probably true, but it’s only someone’s opinion. The Urantia Book does not say it, to my knowledge.

    It does claim it, not in those words, but it does. It’s purpose is to supercede the Bible as the authoritive “revelation” about God(s).

    Also, it’s poor of you to say, “The claim is made…” without citing the claim or who made it. If someone had an opinion about the bible would that make it true?

    It’s not poor at all, you have implied it many times over yourself.

    Second, here’s your basic error upon which all your other assumptions are built like a house of cards, and that is your belief that the bible is “God’s Word,” even to the point of confusing the bible with God himself. These are your beliefs.

    WHOA… backup the horses buddy.
    Do you know what I mean by “God’s word”, and WHEN did I confuse the Bible with God.
    This is just plain ridiculous.

    Your basic error also equates out to the very thing that I stated earlier that, “it’s been my experience that what this sort of thing boils down to with Christians is, “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what I believe.” “The Urantia Book is wrong because it’s not what my sect of Christianity says the bible says.” I stated that early on. Why did it take so long to get it out?

    You said this.. I did not. You have not even asked my views, just equated me with a bunch of people whom you think my be christians and a bunch of baloney someone told you about what some uneducated people might think.

    And last but not least, while the technical definition for angels may well be “extra-terrestrials,” there is NO WAY that I believe that you call them that or that you think of angels in that way.

    Correct, because the biblical definition of an Angel is more detailed. They _are_ however, extra terrestrial.

    You seem to be a person who easily jumps to conclusions without actually investigating the truth for yourself. Fortunately we have done it for you, so just relax.

  12. LOL! OK, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “Alright, have it your way.”

  13. All the things you said against the Urantia Book can also be said of the Bible. Although there is absolute proof that the Bible is of itself VERY contradictive. Concerning your definitionof ET. That discribes God also. We must remember that when decerning
    any religion it is just an opinion. No religous text book, including the Bible, is based on absolute fact. I have studied both. Christianity’s teachings are those of Paul not Jesus. If one actually reads the Bible this can clearly be seen. It can also clearly be seen that Christianity is Anti- Jesus. Just an observation.

    • Yes, it true, the same things can be said. The difference is that these things have bee proved to be false in regards to the bible. And we DO know that it was popular at the time the UB was written to make money by creating religions. The UB an Scientology are pretty much the same. Well, except that scientologists are just plain evil. Jesusonians are just misguided an easily duped.

      • Yes, but proven false in regards to the Bible can not be accepted as truth. Only because the stories in the Bible themselves have been proven to be false and proven to be nothing more than myths themselves. Using the bible to prove if some thing is false is just not good enough. As this book itself has been proven to be innacurate. The Bible is a collection of oral traditions from many cultures but none of it has any evidence supporting it. None.

        • I’d like to see some supporting evidence of the stories in the bible being proven false.

          Bearing in mind of course, that scholarship understands literary forms, and can determine what is myth, what is historical, what is prose, etc.

          It is not a “collection of oral traditions”. Half of it is letters, which were written to various persons. Please, if you are going to make silly claims, at least make factual ones.

          • Lol, like you I would also like to see some proof that it is factual.
            If there is no proof that it is factual. Then that is proof that it is a just stories. Your kind always ask for proof and I am positive by your tone that you have been supplied facts before but still you choose to ignore them. So providing you with what you ask is a waste. I run into people like you all the time. Give me proof you say, but your kindnever give proof or facts of what you believe. It is all opinion with Zero proof. But such is religion hence the reason why christianity and the bible are so destructive to humsn intelligence. Good day silly boy.

          • Lol, like you I would also like to see some proof that it is factual.

            I was asking for YOUR proof that the bible is not factual. Making unfounded claims without proof is just hot air.

            If there is no proof that it is factual. Then that is proof that it is a just stories.

            Well, fwiw, there IS proof that it is factual. Its well documented. For a start, there really was a Jesus, who was crucified by the Romans. So, we, biblical scholarship, would like to see your refutation of these facts.

            Your kind always ask for proof and I am positive by your tone that you have been supplied facts before but still you choose to ignore them. So providing you with what you ask is a waste. I run into people like you all the time. Give me proof you say, but your kindnever give proof or facts of what you believe. It is all opinion with Zero proof.

            To be fair, that’s just an ignorant comment.
            Prove to us that there is zero proof that anything in the bible is true. Lets start with.. there is an ordered universe. Or.. there is a people who believe in God. Or.. that there was a Jesus, who had disciples, and claimed to be God, and who’s disciples went out and shared that message to the world.

            But such is religion hence the reason why christianity and the bible are so destructive to humsn intelligence.

            Since we’re resorting now to personal insults. I’m not sure you’re qualified to comment about human intelligence..

            Good day silly boy.

            Which pretty much sums up your whole argument.

          • Lol, where is there proof that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Lmao as always Biblical scholars such as yourself use the Bible as your proof. Unless your quoteing Jospheus, this is the case your argument definetly holds no water. That has been shown to be a later addition added in. If you truley are a legitemate Scholar then you would no this.

          • Lol, where is there proof that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Lmao as always Biblical scholars such as yourself use the Bible as your proof. Unless your quoteing Jospheus, this is the case your argument definetly holds no water. That has been shown to be a later addition added in. If you truley are a legitemate Scholar then you would know this. As for insults you opened that door by saying silly statements. Your so called proof is that we have a universe. Really you are going with that as your proof. The vedas speak of that as do countless of other Ancient Documents. As a said before your argument concerning the Urantia Book has holds as much water as the legitamacy of the Bible. Oh I am sure you will next use the Dead Sea Scrolls, but if you do not accept all of the scrolls found as truth.Then the ones you agree with will also be false. If you are a Biblical Scholar then you would no that todays modern bible translations are full of errors. But you have the right to believe what you want regardless of if its false. So leave other beliefs alone. Yours is no different. Its just an opinion. Nothing more. Research a little bit more and then we will talk. I have found that you can not argue with brain washing. Christianity is not the religion of jesus it is the religion of Paul. The sooner the church accepts this fact, the more people will follow the true religion that the Master taught. Period.

          • HiI have actually studied and I do read. Actually I read both sides of the argument. The page you have suggested I have seen before and also the pages that refute these statements. My point is that Religion regardless is just an opinion. I have read many different topics concerning this. But unlike you I seek proof not opinions. Many cultures believein God. This is something that was around long before Christianity. See the problem is that people think that their faith is unique and right and that everybody else is wrong. Hence the problem with organized religion. To think that you hold the truth is just ignorance
            and is an institution created by man. In reality no one know’s for sure. But if you claim that your book is absolute truth. Prove it! You can’t because the very evidence you are asking me to read. I have already and as stated earlier I have read those arguments that refute it. Opinions or best guesses nothing more. Again that is my point. Why do you judge what others believe thinking that it is ok to do so. But if you wish,tomorrow I will start my proof. With simple mis-translations. This is the best place to start. Until tomorrow. As you can see I accept your challege. Do you accept mine? Everything that you will throw at me I will respond to with a rebuttal from other BIBLICAL SCHOLARS, who have no bias opinions.

          • So really, your only purpose in commenting is to insult people and just basically say that no matter how much proof there is (and there is a lot, to the point its not even negotiable any more, to anyone with common sense), you wont believe it, because you dislike religion.

            That’s a lot like saying: “No matter how much proof there is in science for something, I wont believe it because I dislike people who do science”.

Leave a Reply, Please!