The Urantia Book: An Attack on the Blood Atonement! Part 1

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!
Copyright 1994 - 2022 Bill's Bible Basics

Authored By  :
Bill Kochman

Published On :
October 14, 1997

Last Updated :
November 24, 2012

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.

Motivation Behind This Series, Christ's Sacrifice: Foundation Of Our Faith, Extra-Biblical Research, Maintain Humility In Our Understanding, Folly Of Doctrinal Debates, I Extensively Quote From Entire Bible, Power Of God's Word, Misguided Ideas Regarding Archangel Michael And Jesus, Complicated Language Of Urantia Book vs Jesus' Simple Parables, Proudly Puffed Up With Knowledge, Jehovah's Witnesses Believe Michael And Jesus Are Same Person, JW's Believe No One Is Saved Outside Of JW's, One False Statement Built Upon Another, Scriptures Are Only Point Of Reference, Spiritual Princes In The Bible, Functions Of Angels, Servants In God's Royal Household, Jesus Took The Form Of A Servant, Michael Is An Archangel And Prince, We Are God's Children Through Spiritual Adoption, Wresting God's Word

Due to an online debate which arose in 1997 as a result of my article entitled "The Urantia Book: A Dangerous New Age Doctrine!", it became necessary for me to write a second article which expounded more fully upon the reasons why I reject the Urantia Book as being an inspired work of God.

The following series is the result of a particular person sending me a three-part email message at that time in which he made some serious claims which attack the credibility of the most important message which is contained in the Bible; that is, Christ's atoning Blood Sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary. As all true Bible-believing Christians will already know, this belief in Christ's vicarious atonement for our sins is the very foundation and pillar of our faith. While this individual ridicules the Bible and questions whether it is truly the inspired Word of God, at the same time, in his delusion, he praises the Urantia Book as a "new revelation" which further expands upon themes that are contained in the Bible.

Those of you who have read some of my previous work will be aware of the fact that while the King James Version of the Bible is the primary source of information and inspiration for my articles, I also explore other sources for additional information which may expand upon or further clarify the contents of the Bible. For example, I have read and possess the Book of Enoch, as well as a variety of other Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal writings. As I write my articles, I also constantly refer to Hebrew and Greek lexicons, in order to understand the origin of certain words in the Bible, and the different meanings which they may have.

In addition to the aforementioned tools, I have also read the Book of Mormon in its entirety, as well as the study helps of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I have likewise engaged in lengthy conversations with the Jehovah's Witnesses in my area, and I have read a number of their magazines. Likewise, I have read parts of the Qur'an, and I possess a limited knowledge of Judaism as well.

In the New Age arena, in times past, I have read more than one thousand five hundred files which relate to the alien and UFO phenomenon. Furthermore, in previous years, I was quite active in certain Internet and FidoNet message forums. I also receive a constant flow of email on a daily basis. Currently, I am very heavily involved with Facebook, and I syndicate to Twitter. I also run my own blog.

While I have never claimed to know everything -- please refer to my article called "Humility in Our Understanding of God's Word" -- I do feel that I have gained enough knowledge in my sixty years of life to be able to speak intelligently about certain topics; particularly those things which pertain to the Bible. I consider myself to be fairly educated in this respect -- but not overly so -- and I spend many hours each week researching the Bible for new answers and information for the articles that I write.

As I explain in the article entitled "Should Christians Engage in Doctrinal Debates?", my normal policy is not to become involved in debates surrounding my articles. This is for several reasons. First, I have serious time limitations. Second, my experience has been that in most cases, people who engage in doctrinal debates have usually already made up their minds. It is my belief that these types of debates are not motivated so much by the desire to learn something new from the other party, but rather to try to enforce one person's beliefs or opinions upon the other. In short, I view such debates as a fruitless waste of one's time, and I know that other people will attest to this fact. While I do adopt some strong positions in a number of my articles, I still leave it up to my readers to use their own freedom of personal choice to make a decision regarding what they wish to believe, based upon the evidence that I provide in each particular article.

Despite my firm no-debate policy, due to the gravity of this person's remarks against the Bible, and the fact that he was sharing them with many other people on his mailing lists, I deemed it necessary to offer him a response. In so doing, I decided to only respond to the first of the three messages which he sent to me. I opted to not respond to messages two and three for several reasons:

1) It would have consumed too much of my time.

2) Besides being rather repetitious of the claims which he made in his first message, the latter two parts consisted primarily of inflammatory remarks which carried no real substance. As such, I did not deem them worthy of taking up more of my precious time.

3) This person was not showing any real signs of having a sincere interest in the inspired Word of God; that is, the Bible. His sole intent was to prove me wrong, to criticize the Bible, and to elevate the Urantia Book as a "superior work".

Having said that, I have dedicated a considerable amount of time to writing the following series; and it is my hope that the person to whom it is primarily addressed will have the decency to sit down calmly, clear his mind, put aside his personal defenses, and try to read this with an open heart and mind. Based on the information that he has sent me thus far, I have no doubt that it will be a difficult task for him.

Please note that being as this is an updated version of my original 1997 article, while I have quoted my detractor's comments verbatim as he made them fifteen years ago, for the sake of my current readers, I have taken the liberty to also expand upon some of my original responses to him, such as by including additional verses which help to support and clarify a particular point, and by adding some additional comments.

One remark which this individual made in the second or third part of his message, which I do feel I should comment on, is his bogus claim that I never quote Jesus Christ in any of my articles. As anyone who has read even a small number of my articles will know, this accusation is absolutely false. To date, since I first began my writing ministry eighteen years ago, I have written and published hundreds of articles, many of which contain verses from one end of the Bible to the other, including many Scriptures from the four Gospels which contain Jesus' own words. As I have often said, there is a tremendous amount of Spirit and Power in the Word of God; much more so than in my own human words. I recognize this fact and do the best I can to back up what I say by quoting from the Bible. One verse which immediately comes to mind is the following:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12, KJV

While I am quite firm with the individual who wrote to me in the following series, as you will clearly see, I have done my best to provide him with a preponderance of Scriptures which reveal that the shedding of Jesus' Blood on the Cross was not only prophesied, but was in fact absolutely essential for the remission of our sins. However, before we delve into the meat of the matter -- that is, his staunch rejection of the Lord's Sacrifice -- this person first takes me through his beliefs regarding Michael the Archangel; or according to his beliefs, Michael the "non-archangel". He writes as follows:

----- Begin Quote -----

I noticed that on your web page you have text which reads in part-

"If you are one who becomes easily offended by opposing views, you may not wish to proceed any further as some of the positions adopted here may upset you or not meet your approval."

So, are you ready?

----- End Quote -----

Oh dear! With that kind of an opening and attitude, this is beginning to look bad already! I normally do not take the time to engage in these kinds of tit-for-tat discussions. My time is too valuable to me. There are many souls who I must reach, and people who have a sincere interest in the Word of God. I hope that I am not making a mistake by responding to you.

This Urantia Book follower then quotes from my article "The Urantia Book: A Dangerous New Age Doctrine!", where I quote from misguided New Age adherent Dr. Byron Weeks, in order to explain to me who he believes Michael really is:

----- Begin Quote -----

"According to the Urantia Book, The Archangel was the "Archangel OF Michael" for Michael is the Heavenly title or name of Jesus, who is the Creator of this "Local Universe." Melchizedek is one of His Sons, and Not Jesus Christ. "Michael" has a whole hierarchy of Sons which include Lucifer, and his subordinate, Satan . . ."

----- End Quote -----

This individual then adds his own remarks to my above quoted material from Dr. Weeks by stating the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

I haven't seen all of Week's comments in context, none of them in fact, and have not been a party to the thread . . .

----- End Quote -----

If you haven't even been directly involved in the message thread, then how can you legitimately respond to the remarks in my article, or defend the message thread? I have read the Bible numerous times and continue to devote many hours to it each week. You can't very well defend the message thread, or Byron Weeks' comments, if you haven't even read them. To do so is pure speculation on your part regarding what it might have said. However, I assure you that the above quote is taken word-for-word from the message thread.

----- Begin Quote -----

. . . but it looks above as if someone is taking his statement about an archangel who works for Michael and mixing it up with the idea that Michael is an archangel.

----- End Quote -----

The Bible clearly refers to Michael as an Archangel. Are you suggesting that he isn't? Are you saying that the Bible is lying regarding this issue, or that God is a liar? Or am I misunderstanding you here? In either event, which do you think I am more inclined to believe, you or God's Word?

----- Begin Quote -----

This is probably the quote from the Urantia Book (UB) to which Weeks is referring:

"The roll call of a dispensation termination is promulgated by an attendant archangel. This is the archangel of the resurrection, sometimes referred to as the 'archangel of Michael.'"

Page 409

----- End Quote -----

Probably? You mean you are not certain? For a person who seeks to defend the false doctrines that are promoted by the Urantia Book, this doesn't seem like very good investigative work in my view.

Here we go with the first bit of New Age psychobabble. If you compare the above quote from the Urantia Book with the way Jesus spoke in the Gospels, you will find a very marked difference. Who is trying to impress who here? Jesus' goal was to reach all men -- including the common man -- with the Gospel of Salvation. For this reason, Jesus used many simple Parables -- which people could easily relate to -- in order to explain things to them, such as the Parable of the Sower, the Parable of the Ten Talents, the Parable of the House Built upon the Rock, etc. The Parables were rather simple illustrations which even young children could understand. Going by the above excerpt, it seems that the writers of the Urantia Book were not aiming to share their message with the common man, being as they have not chosen to speak in the common man's language.

Instead of using terms like "dispensation termination" which sounds big and confusing, why don't they just say what they mean, which I am assuming is "the end of an age"? I am sure that more people would more easily understand that phrase than the one they have chosen to use. The fact that they use such language suggests to me that the writers of the Urantia Book are on a big pride trip, and simply want to impress people with their knowledge. This is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures which tell us that knowledge puffs people up -- that is, it lifts people up in their pride -- while it is charity -- or love -- which edifies the human spirit, as we see by these verses:

"Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth."
1 Corinthians 8:1, KJV

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing . . . Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away."
1 Corinthians 13:2, 8, KJV

All I can say is, if our Salvation depended on the message that is promoted by the Urantia Book, whatever that message happens to be, I suppose that many people would be doomed to hell; because given the elevated terminology that is used in the Urantia Book, most people would not begin to understand it.

----- Begin Quote -----

I know there is confusion in the Christian world about whether or not Michael is an archangel. The "regular" Christians think he isn't and the Jehovah's and perhaps the Adventists think he is.

----- End Quote -----

I don't know what your sources are for making such a claim, but personally, I have never met a Bible-believing Christian yet who doubts that Michael is one of the two Archangels who is mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible. It is spelled out as clear as day. In fact, the Catholics believe that there are seven Archangels. In addition to Michael and Gabriel, they believe in Raphael -- who is mentioned in the Apocryphal book of Tobit -- as well as four others, whose names I don't recall at the moment.

At any rate, those people who reject the idea of Michael being an Archangel apparently don't understand the Bible, or else they have purposely chosen not to believe it. It also sounds like you are attributing things to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Adventists which you are not absolutely sure of. If this is the case, then perhaps you should not attribute things to them at all. For the record, I have had many conversations with the Jehovah's Witnesses. In one such conversation, and in their Bible study helps as well, they do clearly say that they believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one and the same person. One of their representatives who has been with them for a number of years told me this face-to-face. I have also read this in their study helps as well. It is for this reason that I wondered if Dr. Weeks may be a former disgruntled Jehovah's Witness.

For the record, while the Jehovah's Witnesses teach some things which are true, they likewise promote certain ideas and teachings which I personally view as being false. For example, I have directly confronted them regarding the issue of whether or not they consider a person to be saved if they are not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their response to me was a clear "No, they are not saved". In other words, believing in Jesus -- or Jehovah -- is not enough to obtain Salvation, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses. One must be a part of God's "real" organization and Kingdom; which, of course, in their view, really means the Jehovah Witnesses. Based on this belief, it is difficult for me to view them as true Bible-believing Christians.

Similar to many other smooth talkers -- assuming that your readers have swallowed your first piece of disinformation regarding some Christians not believing that Michael is an Archangel -- you then proceed below to share verses which most Christians are aware of; at least those who are serious students of the Bible. What you are basically doing here is trying to build on your previous false statement by quoting from the Scriptures. It is an attempt to validate your first statement regarding Michael. I have seen this tactic used many times before. Once that first lie slips by unnoticed, people who promote such false doctrines -- like yourself -- just keep adding more to it, until it appears as if they have built a strong case for their position. However, it is all built on false statements. You write:

----- Begin Quote -----

It's odd too because the problem and the answer both lie in the Bible. In Jude it says- "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 1:9 (KJV)

----- End Quote -----

You see; there you go again with more disinformation as if to say "Oh, it's odd! Why, they should know better! After all, it is right there in their Bible!" That is the spirit of what you are saying in order to further support your false argument. To reiterate, I have never met a Christian yet who does not know that Gabriel and Michael are called Archangels in the King James Version of the Bible.

----- Begin Quote -----

That's ONE verse talking about "Michael the archangel". Here are THREE Bible verses with the truth about Michael THE PRINCE.

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."
Daniel 10:13, KJV

"But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."
Daniel 10:21, KJV

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."
Daniel 12:1, KJV

----- End Quote -----

I am glad to see that you are quoting some Scriptures. That is the only valid point of reference in my view, or anything that fully agrees with it. It is sad that most New Age advocates do not; and the reason why they don't, is because it contradicts and exposes the falsity in their own doctrines. Now let's see what you do with these verses.

----- Begin Quote -----

A PRINCE is a member of a royal family, the son of a KING.

----- End Quote -----

Agreed; but you must realize -- as I believe that you do -- that these references to princes and kings in the previous verses are referring to spiritual entities whose job it is to guard over and to protect God's people, and to fight the spiritual battles of the Lord, as per the verses that are found in such Books as Jude, Daniel and Revelation. They also serve other functions as well, such as bearing divine messages to human beings. As you may know, derived from the Hebrew word "mal'ak" and the Greek word "aggelos", that is in fact the essence of the word "angel". He is a messenger who is sent from God.

----- Begin Quote -----

An archangel is a servant in the royal household. Michael is NOT an archangel, but is in fact according to the Bible, a PRINCE, the son of the King, who is of course, God the Father.

----- End Quote -----

I can accept that an Archangel is a servant in the Royal Household. After all, we are all really servants in the Royal Household of God. In fact, the Scriptures inform us that even though Jesus is the Prince of Peace and the Son of the King, He likewise was willing to take upon Himself the form of a servant, as we see by these verses:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Philippians 2:5-8, KJV

But just to keep things clear, allow me to point out that there is no specific verse in the Bible which makes a direct association between the words "archangel" and "servant". I just conducted a search in my Bible program and it does not exist. However, I am willing to give you some leeway, and I won't be so dogmatic regarding this point, being as you are basically right in your assumption. Allow me to make a small suggestion. If you expect to make any real progress with me, or with any other Christian who knows the Word of God, you are going to have to quote a lot more Scriptures. Here are the verses which I would have used to support your point:

"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith"
Galatians 6:10, KJV

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"
Ephesians 2:19, KJV

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"
1 Peter 2:9, KJV

Sadly, right after making the previous comments, you turn around and contradict yourself by putting Daniel and Jude in opposition to each other. Jude specifically refers to Michael as an Archangel. You quoted the verse yourself. How then can you now claim that he isn't an Archangel when it is there in black and white for all to read? Daniel refers to him as a prince. The answer to your seeming dilemma seems so clear to me, and I am surprised that you are unable to see it. Or is it that you simply reject it because it doesn't agree with what you have chosen to believe?

Why can't Michael be both? Why can't he be the son of the King -- just as we become the adopted sons and daughters of the King when we accept Jesus -- and an Archangel at the same time? Regarding our own spiritual adoption through our faith in the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, allow me to these verses with you as well:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
John 1:12, KJV

"And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
Luke 20:34-36, KJV

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
Romans 8:15-17, KJV

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:26, KJV

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
Ephesians 1:5, KJV

It seems to me that you are making things more complicated for yourself than they need to be. As I said, if we accept all of the previous verses at their face value, then we can conclude that Michael is both a Prince in God's Kingdom, as well as an Archangel. It is as simple as that, if you are willing to see it. I advise you to be very careful regarding wresting -- or twist the meaning of -- the Scriptures to your own destruction. Consider these verses:

"Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil."
Psalm 56:5, KJV

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16, KJV

In other words, don't try to force the Scriptures to say what you want them to say, so that they agree with what you want to believe. Rather, accept them for what they actually do say, even if they expose weaknesses in your own belief system. If our current beliefs in some way conflict with the Word of God, then we are obligated to change our beliefs so that they conform with what the Bible actually teaches, and not the other way around.

Please go to part two for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

BBB Tools And Services

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.