According to Dr Sadler, The Urantia Book (UB hereafter) was 'complete and certified' in 1935.
However, Ernest Moyer (a believer) has carefully documented that Dr. Sadler indeed made changes to the text after this date. So either the 'sources' are not infallible, or he found errors in their transmissions.
Matthew Block (another believer), documents the human texts woven into the UB and moreover texts incorporated after its supposed 'sign-off', one such being a text incorporated word perfect 7 years later.
Changes continued to be made up to at least 1955.
The point here is that the book, supposedly signed-off by its superhuman sources, still contained errors and omissions which were subject to later, human revision. It sees then that human hands were required to correct superhuman errors in the text.
Suffice to say therefore, that regardless of the source, the integrity of this “revelation” is not entirely trustworthy.
Now, as a Christian, where does that leave me?
Dr. Sadler states that the information imparted through the “sleeping subject” was 'essentially Christian.'
However, it's demonstrably clear that UB is essentially anti-Christian in that it denies or distorts almost every fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. The only way it can be claimed to be Christian is if one ignores the Bible itself ... and as the Bible is the only source, then UB is logically self-refuting.
UB has Jesus declaring to Nathaniel, “the Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin” (UB, 159.4.3).
The description of Scripture as 'altogether human' is a fundamental rejection of Abrahamic Revelation in its entirety, of both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament. It rejects the biblical view of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation, sacraments, the eschaton. It espouses polytheism – in some ways pseudo-Arian, although that does a disservice to Arius (And Bock, elsewhere, refutes the claim of Arianism, displaying a faulty understanding of Arian doctrine.) “Gods” capitalised appears in numerous places.
While acknowledging one supreme God, it polytheism, according to a critic, “puts Greek and Hindu mythology to shame.” And suffice to say, don't start me on its 'Trinity of Trinities' which evidences a staggering lack of spiritual or metaphysical insight.
The virgin birth is rejected, rather, He is presented as the incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, the creator of our universe and one of “more than 700,000 Creator Sons of the Eternal Son.” This clearly conflicts with the New Testament’s view of Jesus, the Biblical Creation, Eden, the Serpent, the Fall and Biblical angelology.
All in all the UB proclaims a different God, a different Jesus, and a different Gospel from that of the Bible. Its message, allegedly revealed by higher spiritual beings, is absolutely and fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity.
Reflecting on Scripture, we read:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," (1 Timothy 4:1)
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
"And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray." (Matthew 24:11)
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Now, whether these are human words, or divine advice, they make good common sense ... and this much I know:
Truth is incapable of error, and those who speak in truth are incapable of error, so, if there are errors in the UB which appear to come from the very sources themselves (indeed errors which Sadler and his co-workers sought to cover) then the sources are not infallible.
So where there are errors, there is darkness, either the darkness of ignorance, or the greater and more unsettling darkness of deception ...
Whichever, the sources and the human co-workers cannot be trusted.
Dr. Sadler once wrote that if there was anything supernatural about mediumistic phenomena, it was probably demonic. But when he actually encountered such phenomena at first hand, it appears he fell under its glamour.
Lastly, this:
Ernest Moyer offers an intriguing thesis in "The Origin of the Urantia Papers”.
He offers Dr Sadler as the "contact personality”, but argues he's not the “sleeping subject” and furthmore argues that neither is Kellogg, whom many people think is. Much of his work exposes 'corruptions' to the text of the UB between 1939 and 1942, both in content and source.
Here's an interesting thing:
Sadler's wife, Lena, died in 1939. By this time, the activity of the 'sleeping subject' had ceased, leaving him without a connection to 'divine advice'.
Was Lena then, his muse, the sleeping subject?
Moyer argues that something happened after the last of the papers was delivered in 1935. Sadler himself mentions a “third series” of revelations, being some clarifications that appear to have entered the text between 1939 and 1942.
By now the editorial team is Sadler, an unknown number of people supposedly witnesses of the 'sleeping subject' (and if the subject was a psychiatric patient, this is a violation of human rights) and the Forum, some 400 strong!
Enter Christy – Emma Christensen – the adopted daughter of the Sadlers. She began to claim contact with spiritual beings who wished to deliver further clarifications to the revelation!
Moyer claims Christy was a 'bad channeler', that her revelations were more likely sourced from her own subconscious, and that she was responsible for 'corruptions' creeping into the text. In her materials a midwestern conservative sensibility of the revealing supernatural being shines forth!
Add to this intermediaries between the human and higher realms, necessary because the higher realms cannot make themselves intelligible to the human sphere and we have so many laters of redaction ...
However, Ernest Moyer (a believer) has carefully documented that Dr. Sadler indeed made changes to the text after this date. So either the 'sources' are not infallible, or he found errors in their transmissions.
Matthew Block (another believer), documents the human texts woven into the UB and moreover texts incorporated after its supposed 'sign-off', one such being a text incorporated word perfect 7 years later.
Changes continued to be made up to at least 1955.
The point here is that the book, supposedly signed-off by its superhuman sources, still contained errors and omissions which were subject to later, human revision. It sees then that human hands were required to correct superhuman errors in the text.
Suffice to say therefore, that regardless of the source, the integrity of this “revelation” is not entirely trustworthy.
Now, as a Christian, where does that leave me?
Dr. Sadler states that the information imparted through the “sleeping subject” was 'essentially Christian.'
However, it's demonstrably clear that UB is essentially anti-Christian in that it denies or distorts almost every fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. The only way it can be claimed to be Christian is if one ignores the Bible itself ... and as the Bible is the only source, then UB is logically self-refuting.
UB has Jesus declaring to Nathaniel, “the Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin” (UB, 159.4.3).
The description of Scripture as 'altogether human' is a fundamental rejection of Abrahamic Revelation in its entirety, of both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament. It rejects the biblical view of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation, sacraments, the eschaton. It espouses polytheism – in some ways pseudo-Arian, although that does a disservice to Arius (And Bock, elsewhere, refutes the claim of Arianism, displaying a faulty understanding of Arian doctrine.) “Gods” capitalised appears in numerous places.
While acknowledging one supreme God, it polytheism, according to a critic, “puts Greek and Hindu mythology to shame.” And suffice to say, don't start me on its 'Trinity of Trinities' which evidences a staggering lack of spiritual or metaphysical insight.
The virgin birth is rejected, rather, He is presented as the incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, the creator of our universe and one of “more than 700,000 Creator Sons of the Eternal Son.” This clearly conflicts with the New Testament’s view of Jesus, the Biblical Creation, Eden, the Serpent, the Fall and Biblical angelology.
All in all the UB proclaims a different God, a different Jesus, and a different Gospel from that of the Bible. Its message, allegedly revealed by higher spiritual beings, is absolutely and fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity.
Reflecting on Scripture, we read:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," (1 Timothy 4:1)
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
"And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray." (Matthew 24:11)
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Now, whether these are human words, or divine advice, they make good common sense ... and this much I know:
Truth is incapable of error, and those who speak in truth are incapable of error, so, if there are errors in the UB which appear to come from the very sources themselves (indeed errors which Sadler and his co-workers sought to cover) then the sources are not infallible.
So where there are errors, there is darkness, either the darkness of ignorance, or the greater and more unsettling darkness of deception ...
Whichever, the sources and the human co-workers cannot be trusted.
Dr. Sadler once wrote that if there was anything supernatural about mediumistic phenomena, it was probably demonic. But when he actually encountered such phenomena at first hand, it appears he fell under its glamour.
Lastly, this:
Ernest Moyer offers an intriguing thesis in "The Origin of the Urantia Papers”.
He offers Dr Sadler as the "contact personality”, but argues he's not the “sleeping subject” and furthmore argues that neither is Kellogg, whom many people think is. Much of his work exposes 'corruptions' to the text of the UB between 1939 and 1942, both in content and source.
Here's an interesting thing:
Sadler's wife, Lena, died in 1939. By this time, the activity of the 'sleeping subject' had ceased, leaving him without a connection to 'divine advice'.
Was Lena then, his muse, the sleeping subject?
Moyer argues that something happened after the last of the papers was delivered in 1935. Sadler himself mentions a “third series” of revelations, being some clarifications that appear to have entered the text between 1939 and 1942.
By now the editorial team is Sadler, an unknown number of people supposedly witnesses of the 'sleeping subject' (and if the subject was a psychiatric patient, this is a violation of human rights) and the Forum, some 400 strong!
Enter Christy – Emma Christensen – the adopted daughter of the Sadlers. She began to claim contact with spiritual beings who wished to deliver further clarifications to the revelation!
Moyer claims Christy was a 'bad channeler', that her revelations were more likely sourced from her own subconscious, and that she was responsible for 'corruptions' creeping into the text. In her materials a midwestern conservative sensibility of the revealing supernatural being shines forth!
Add to this intermediaries between the human and higher realms, necessary because the higher realms cannot make themselves intelligible to the human sphere and we have so many laters of redaction ...
the paper says more to me about it's human author and certain views on Scripture common to the era.
