This has been a big issue here and a seemingly sore spot for Swedenborgians. This has also brought about the most criticism and harshest responses. I would like to clarify why we can "label" Swedenborgianism as a cult.

The reason why we can make the claim that Swedenborgianism is a cult is simply because they claim to be "Christian" in their beliefs yet their doctrine is far different from "Traditional" and accepted Christian doctrine. It would be one thing is Swedenborgianism was just claiming to be a new religion - like Hinduism, Buddhism etc these religions don't even try and call themselves Christian. The problem arises though when you try and pass off doctrine and beliefs as Christian then you are subject to the Christians criteria and standard. When someone comes along with a different standard then it must be compared against the original standard and if it is in any way different it must be rejected. The Apostles and early church pretty much used the Bible as we know it today as their only and final source and standard. Interestingly to note is that they used the OT as this is what they had in the beginning. So though this would be a huge discussion it also shows that Swedenborg misunderstood the OT. It is possible that Swedenborg had never heard of the Apostles creed? It is apparent because he claimed that the errors of the "Trinity" teaching and others like faith alone were introduced at the Nicene creed in (approx) 325 Ad. But the Apostles creed which was written in (Approx.) 100's AD clearly teaches the Trinity doctrine and faith alone etc. This creed is believed to be directly inspired by the Apostles or at least the very next generation of Apostles after them. - This is based on my own limited knowledge of this. Our standard as a Christian is the 66 book Bible. When Swedenborg comes along and presents a bible with only 4 books in the NT etc this is a different standard. Why? Because for one it is not complete and therefore open to error or twisting. Secondly along with this new chopped down version of the Bible Swedenborg inserts his own interpretation of what is left of it. This also is a different standard and when compared to the 66 book Bible which we see as being totally inspired and living Word of God, it is easily apparent that this is a different gospel and subject to Galations 1:6-8 " I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Now if you say that Swedenborg's doctrine doesn't contradict the Bible then why do we need him at all? Why add 40 some odd books of revelation if everything needed to be a Christian is already contained in the Bible? So why do Swedenborgians get offended when they are labeled a cult by Bible believing Christians when they come to Christianity with a "new form of Christianity" then wonder why they are called a cult by them because they don't accept their "new gospel"?
Do you see what you are doing here? You are coming to me - a 66 book Bible believing Christian. Which means that I hold all those books including Paul's Epistles as the Athorative, inspired, living and infallible Word of God! You are coming to me and telling me that you have the true gospel and correct meaning of the Scripture and for some of you the true canon. But when I compare your new gospel to my Word of God I see that it is just plain heresy and I must then call it what it is and warn others of this perverted gospel. Does this seem harsh? Is not Swedenborg doing the same thing by saying that our doctrines are wrong and heretical.? He also calls them "perversions . So can't I use the same terms in return? Maybe we need to discuss more as to why the 66 book Bible is the Word of God and how it is? In another post. Also before ending here I have two other Scriptures to mention. One is the Swedenborgs numerous use of John 16:12-14
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
Swedenborgians continually use this to imply that is was talking about Swedenborg and the writings along with the claim that the culture wasn't ready for this revelation. For one this implies that mans' knowledge, or intellect has a part in attaining revelation from God. Or that as man gets "smarter, more mature, intellectually" then he can better receive or hear from God? I find this the opposite in the bible look at Moses or David who lived thousands of years ago but had great revelation knowledge and insight. John 16:12-14 here is clearly talking about and fulfilled in the 2nd chapter of Acts. But you wouldn't see that as clearly because Swedenborg had cut that book out and no matter how much you try and mince words , you don't look or receive these books as athorative so you therefore can't receive that as a fulfillment. But look at the disciples. Before the fulfillment of that Scripture they were cowering with much fear and definitely appeared to be ignorant men. Yet a miraculous thing happened in Acts. After the fulfillment of that Scripture and many others they were totally transformed into mighty men of God and were quite capable and ready for God's revelation. Also if at that time the culture was not ready for God's revelation then 1. Why did God send Jesus then? Why note wait until now when we are more ready for Him? 2. How do you then reconcile this Scripture :
Galations 4:1-7 1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

According to God, His time table was just right and the fullness of time meaning the time was right for Him to send His Son into the World. Apparently God thought man was ready enough. But actually it has nothing to do with man's be "ready" culturally or mentally. But rather God has His own time table and plan and in His time He accomplishes his will.

Thank you for directly addressing the cult question in relation to the Swedenborgian Church. Until the issues are out in the open, we cannot deal with them.

It will take some time to respond to the various points you make, but just to get things started, please realize that although Swedenborg turned to the Word of God and to the Lord himself as authority, he was well aware of the various creeds of Christianity, and commented on them extensively--since then, as now, Christians often turned to them as authority in preference to the Bible.

I will quote below a section from Swedenborg's book A Brief Exposition in which he discusses the three leading creeds that come to us from the early Christian church, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

This section also states Swedenborg's objections to traditional Christianity's doctrine of the tri-personal Trinity, along with some Scripture confirmations of the Trinity in one Person which he taught.

If you are interested in further statements of Swedenborg on the various creeds, I would be happy quote more of them for you--although in the case of the Athanasian Creed, he wrote a small book on the subject, which would be far too much to quote online. Also, although I do have an electronic text of Swedenborg's booklet on The Athanasian Creed in Latin, I am not sure I have it in English. If you or anyone else here has a particular interest, I could try to track it down in English and attach it to an email.

From A Brief Exposition of the Doctrines of the New Church, by Emanuel Swedenborg:

30. The whole system of Theology in the Christian world, at this day, is founded on an idea of Three Gods, arising from the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons.

BRIEF ANALYSIS
31. We will first say something concerning the origin or source from whence the idea of a Trinity of Persons in the Divinity, and thereby of three Gods, proceeded. There are three Creeds, which are called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, which specifically teach a Trinity: the Apostles' and the Nicene assert simply a Trinity, but the Athanasian a Trinity of Persons. These three Creeds are to be met with in many Psalters, the Apostles' Creed next the Psalm which is sung, the Nicene after the Decalogue, and the Athanasian apart by itself.* The Apostles' Creed was written after the times of the Apostles; the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nice, a city of Bithynia, to which all the bishops in Asia, Africa, and Europe, were summoned by the Emperor Constantine, in the year 325; but the Athanasian Creed was composed since that council by one or more persons, with an intent utterly to overthrow the Arians and was afterwards received by the churches as ecumenical. In the two former creeds the confession of a Trinity was evident, but from the third or Athanasian Creed the profession of a Trinity of Persons was spread abroad. That hence arose the idea of three Gods, shall now be shown.

* This relates to the Protestant churches on the continent of Europe.

32. That there is a Divine Trinity, is manifest from the Lord's words in Matthew:

Jesus said, go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

And from these words in the same:

When Jesus was baptized, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and coming upon him, and lo, a voice from heaven, this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:16, 17).

The reason why the Lord sent his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was, because in him then glorified there was the Divine Trinity; for in the preceding verse 18, he says:

All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. (Matt. 28:18)

And in the 20th verse following:

Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the consummation of the age. (Matt. 28:20)

Thus he spoke of himself alone, and not of three. And in John:

The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39).

The former words he uttered after his glorification, and his glorification was his complete unition with his Father, who was the Divine itself in him from conception; and the Holy Spirit was the Divine proceeding from him glorified (John 20:22).

33. The reason why the idea of three Gods has principally arisen from the Athanasian Creed, where a Trinity of Persons is taught, is, because the word Person begets such an idea, which is further implanted in the mind by the following words in the same Creed: "There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit"; and afterwards, "The Father is God and Lord, the Son is God and Lord, and the Holy Spirit is God and Lord"; but more especially by these: "For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords"; the result of which words is this, that by the Christian verity we are bound to confess and acknowledge three Gods and three Lords, but by the Catholic religion we are not allowed to say, or to name three Gods and Lords; consequently we may have an idea of three Gods and Lords, but not an oral confession of them. Nevertheless, that the doctrine of the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed is agreeable to the truth, if only instead of a Trinity of Persons there be substituted a Trinity of Person, which Trinity is in God the Savior Jesus Christ, may be seen in The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Lord, published at Amsterdam, in the year 1763 (n. 55-61.)

34. It is to be observed, that in the Apostles' Creed it is said, "I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit"; in the Nicene Creed, "I believe in one God, the Father, in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit," thus only in one God; but in the Athanasian Creed it is, "In God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit," thus in three Gods. But whereas the authors and favorers of this creed clearly saw that an idea of three Gods would unavoidably result from the expressions therein used, therefore, in order to remedy this, they asserted that one substance or essence belongs to the three; but still there arises from thence no other idea, than that there are three Gods unanimous and agreeing together; for when it is said of the three that their substance or essence is one and indivisible, it does not remove the idea of three, but confounds it, because the expression is a metaphysical one, and the science of metaphysics, with all its ingenuity, cannot of three Persons, each whereof is God, make one; it may indeed make of them one in the mouth, but never in the idea.

35. That the whole Christian theology at this day is founded on an idea of three Gods, is evident from the doctrine of justification, which is the head of the doctrines of the church with Christians, both among Roman Catholics and Protestants. That doctrine sets forth that God the Father sent his Son to redeem and save men, and give the Holy Spirit to operate the same; every man who hears, reads, or repeats this, cannot but in his thought, that is, in his idea, divide God into three, and perceive that one God sent another, and operates by a third. That the same thought of a Divine Trinity distinguished into three Persons, each whereof is God, is continued throughout the rest of the doctrinals of the present church, as from a head into its body, will be demonstrated in its proper place. In the meantime consult what has been premised concerning justification, consult theology in general and in particular, and at the same time, consult yourself, while listening to preachings in temples, or while praying at home, whether you have any other perception and thought thence resulting than of three Gods; and especially while you are praying or singing first to one, and then to the other two separately, as is often done. Hence is established the truth of the proposition, that the whole theology in the Christian world at this day, is founded on an idea of three Gods.

36. That a trinity of Gods is contrary to the Sacred Scripture, is known, for we read:

Am not I Jehovah, and there is no God else beside Me, a just God and a Savior, there is none beside Me (Isa. 45:21, 22).

I, Jehovah, am thy God, and thou shalt acknowledge no God beside Me, and there is no Savior beside Me (Hos. 13:4).

Thus said Jehovah the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts, I am the First and the Last, and beside Me there is no God (Isa. 44:6).

Jehovah of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called (Isa. 54:5).

In that day Jehovah shall he King over the whole earth; in that day there shall be one Jehovah, and his name One (Zech. 14:9).
Beside many more passages elsewhere.

37. That a trinity of Gods is contrary to enlightened reason, may appear from many considerations. What man of sound reason can bear to hear that three Gods created the world; or that creation and preservation, redemption and salvation, together with reformation and regeneration, are the work of three Gods, and not of one God? And on the other hand, what man of sound reason is not willing to hear that the same God who created us, redeemed us, and regenerates and saves us? As the latter sentiment, and not the former, enters into the reason, there is therefore no nation upon the face of the whole earth, possessed of religion and sound reason, but what acknowledges one God. That the Mohammedans, and certain nations in Asia and Africa, abhor Christianity, because they believe that it worships three Gods, is known; and the only answer of the Christians is, that the three have one essence, and thus are one God. I can affirm, that from the reason which has been given me, I can clearly see, that neither the world, nor the angelic heaven, nor the church, nor anything therein, could have existed, nor can subsist, but from one God.

38. Here I will add something from the Confession of the Dutch Churches received at the Synod of Dort, which is this: "I believe in one God, who is one essence, in which are three Persons, truly and really distinct, incommunicable properties from eternity, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Hold Spirit; the Father is of all things, both visible and invisible the cause, origin, and beginning; the Son is the Word, wisdom, and image of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the eternal virtue and power proceeding from the Father and the Son. However, it must be confessed, that this doctrine far exceeds the comprehension of the human mind; we must therefore wait till we come to heaven for a perfect knowledge thereof."

"Do you see what you are doing here? You are coming to
me - a 66 book Bible believing Christian. Which means
that I hold all those books including Paul's Epistles as
the Athorative, inspired, living and infallible Word of God!
You are coming to me and telling me that you have the
true gospel and correct meaning of the Scripture and for
some of you the true canon. But when I compare your
new gospel to my Word of God I see that it is just plain
heresy and I must then call it what it is and warn others
of this perverted gospel. Does this seem harsh?"

I think David has neatly summarized the question of faith, of deciding what exactly do you believe? David has found something he believes, and I completely respect that. As I do for other friends that believe other things. God is far more sophisticated than I think people often give Him credit for, and gives us each, I think, what we need, if we seek it. At the same time, I have no problem believing different things than other people, since what I believe meets my faith needs (that of a rationalist doubting Thomas, I'm afraid!). If, however, as we've discussed before, we can maintain the kind of Christian charity that this list discussion has been doing, it seems to me, a pretty good job of, then I think we all benefit. Love is the first essential, wisdom only the second.

"One is the Swedenborgs numerous use of John
16:12-14
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot
bear them now. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth,
has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not
speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He
will speak; and He will tell you things to come. "He will
glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it
to you.
Swedenborgians continually use this to imply that is was
talking about Swedenborg and the writings along with
the claim that the culture wasn't ready for this
revelation. For one this implies that mans' knowledge, or
intellect has a part in attaining revelation from God. Or
that as man gets "smarter, more mature, intellectually"
then he can better receive or hear from God?"

There's a little misunderstanding here that I may be responsible for in not explaining clearly. The point is not that man is any "smarter" now, but that the human race as a whole has, in effect, "grown up," i.e. gotten much more learned and sophisticated than it used to be. One spin-off of this has been that evil has seen a increase in sophistication as well. As is apparent in the enormous effectiveness of the temptations of modern evil in many contexts. Since God plays fair, the point of the new revelation was to provide an equally sophisticated good, to keep the free will playing field level. And that's what Swedenborg's revelation was all about.

Kurt

You say:

"But the Apostles creed which was written in (Approx.) 100's AD clearly teaches the Trinity doctrine and faith alone etc."

Here is the Apostles' Creed:

---------------

I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

---------------

This creed does clearly teach a Trinity--which Swedenborg also teaches. However, it does not clearly teach a Trinity of Persons. As Swedenborg states, a Trinity of Persons does not appear in either the Apostles' or the Nicene Creeds, but is first mentioned in the Athanasian Creed, which came after the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

Contrary to your statement above, there is no language at all in the Apostles' creed, or in either of the other two creeds, stating the current Protestant doctrine that faith alone saves.

That doctrine was unknown in the early Christian Church, and did not become the reigning doctrine in any part of the Christian Church until after the Protestant Reformation. Even after the Reformation, it took hold only in the Protestant branch of Christianity, and not in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox branches, which still constitute the majority of Christendom.

I have loosely used the term "traditional Christianity" to refer to the Protestant branch of Christianity, since that is apparently the background of most of the people taking part in this discussion. In light of your message, perhaps this is a misleading term. The current "traditional Christianity" that reigns in Protestantism, with its doctrine of faith alone, is only about 500 years old, and is still a minority view in the Christian world as a whole.

If you are going to say that Swedenborgianism is a cult because our doctrine "is far different from 'Traditional' and accepted Christian doctrine," I must ask the question, which "traditional and accepted Christian doctrine"? Is it the 500 year old "traditional and accepted Christian doctrine" originated by Luther, Calvin, and the other theologians who started Protestant Reformation? Is it the 1,600-1,900 year old "traditional and accepted Christian doctrine" expressed in the earliest of the Christian creeds? Or is it the nearly 2,000 year old "traditional and accepted Christian doctrine" stated in the New Testament itself?

Swedenborg went directly to the Bible, bypassing all human creeds in favor of the true source of Christian teaching and faith. He was not afraid to point out where error had crept into the Christian creeds--where they had departed from the Gospel of Christ and from the teachings of the Apostles as found in the Acts and the Epistles.

You state:

"The reason why we can make the claim that Swedenborgianism is a cult is simply because they claim to be 'Christian' in their beliefs yet their doctrine is far different from 'Traditional' and accepted Christian doctrine."

I ask you, as I asked Jamie, is it traditional and accepted Christian doctrine that should determine whether a church is a cult, or is it the Word of God? Swedenborg's teaching is based on the Word of God. The doctrine of faith alone is specifically rejected in the Bible, and is nowhere mentioned in the early Christian creeds. Where is your basis for claiming that this is a reason to label Swedenborgianism as a cult?

If you try to claim that Swedenborgianism is a cult because it is a minority view that conflicts with the majority view of Christianity, you will put yourself in a very difficult position. Your own Protestant view is a minority view that conflicts with the majority Christian view of the larger Christian Church--which includes the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Does this unorthodox teaching mean that the Protestant Church as a whole is a cult? I hardly think so. Even the Pope doesn't make that claim anymore. :-)

The Christian Church does not trace its origins to tradition, as some other religions of the world do. It traces its origin to the Word of God and to God's incarnation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, in Christianity, it is not tradition that determines whether or not a particular church is a cult doctrinally speaking; it is how that church's teachings compare with the Bible itself, and what that church teaches about the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus.

You quote Galatians 1:6-8 as a charge against Swedenborg and Swedenborgians for not accepting the 66 book Bible. But when Paul wrote Galatians, the 66 book Bible did not exist. Therefore, Paul's statements in Galatians cannot possibly codify the 66 book Bible presently accepted by Protestants.

As you point out, only the Old Testament was clearly codified at the time that the books of the New Testament were written. And contrary to your statement that Swedenborg misunderstood the Old Testament, Swedenborg followed the canon of the Old Testament that is taught and accepted in the New Testament much more closely than the present-day Catholic and Protestant Old Testament canons, which contain books that are not mentioned as part of the Word of God in the New Testament, but were added later by human councils.

On another thread, I have brought forth criteria from the Bible itself supporting the Scriptural canon adopted by Swedenborg. And although Jamie mentions that the various human councils that codified the present 66 book Bible must have had some criteria, those criteria have not yet been brought forward here.

Until we have all of the information on the table, may I suggest that this issue of the Bible canon is a false issue? The Protestant canon differs from the canon accepted in the larger Catholic Church, and yet Protestantism does not feel the need to argue that it is not a cult simply because it rejects the canon of its mother church. It is unfair to hold the Swedenborgian Church to a standard that the Protestant Church itself cannot meet.

While I certainly do not reject the Bible as a key issue, I think we will make very little progress if we get caught up in arguments about the correct canon--a rather murky issue that was decided in the various branches of Christianity well after the Scriptures themselves were written. I have already stated that for the purposes of discussion here, I am willing to operate using your canon. Even though I do not accept the Acts and the Epistles as part of the Word of God, I believe that they support the Christian teachings found in Swedenborg's writings just as the Gospels and the Book of Revelation do. (Swedenborg accepted five, not four, books as the Word of the New Testament.)

The real core of the cult question is our respective teachings about God and salvation. I suggest that we focus our discussion in these areas.

1. Mystery or Speculation?

According to many people, the Christian tradition of faith stands out for its talk of God as the triune God. That's certainly an unusual way of imagining God which can result in a wealth of possible misunderstandings and incomprehension. It makes me bold enough to ask whether the Holy Trinity - the solemn formula - must now be seen as a mystery or not rather as a theological speculation which was later turned into a mystery.

At all events the Trinity (to talk in these terms for the sake of brevity) began as a theological answer to an intellectual problem. Once we've said that God became man in Christ (the classical doctrine of the incarnation), the question arises whether God is no longer in heaven. Or to put it more strongly: if God really became man, what was left of God? No one wanted two Gods (God and Jesus) but people also wanted to address Jesus as God. So are there two? All kinds of solutions were offered. To mention just a few: couldn't you say that Jesus was a kind of mask which God put on when he came to human beings? Indeed, but in that case, we would no longer really have to do with God but have a masquerade, albeit a sacred one. The idea that Jesus was God's power on earth suffered the same fate: attractive, but again there was too little of God (as a person) in Jesus. Most solutions in which a person could still be recognized had the flaw of leaving too little of God in Jesus, yet it all began with the assertion that God was in Jesus. So does two make one and one two? The teachers of the early church argued over this for centuries, and in the course of this discussion they noted that the earliest Christian tradition also speaks about God's Spirit as a someone, a person. So the question became: how can 3 = 1 and 1 = 3?

During the first centuries the three persons were still somewhat confused, but as an answer to that question, in the course of time the doctrine of the Holy Trinity came to be crystallized: God is one (and not two or three), but the one divine substance consists of (or better in) the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since then this has become a fixed part of the Christian tradition. For some people (down to the present day) it has become the occasion for engaging in colossal speculations about God, humankind and the world, and for the Eastern church it's the real mystery of Christian faith, but for most Christians it's an uncomprehended, incomprehensible and unimaginable concept of faith. When I once tried to explain to students what the tradition meant by the divine Trinity and came to the three persons, a girl asked in amazement, 'Three? But surely there are four; isn't there also a Substance?' Such kinds of misunderstanding are unavoidable. What the early church meant by substance isn't clear, let alone what it meant by 'person'. In any case, it was quite different from what we mean by person.

2. Asking too much

Not understood, incomprehensible and unimaginable - that doesn't seem to me an exaggeration. It's an occasion for fundamental misunderstandings about the Christian faith. Islam can't see this as other than the fact that Christianity worships three Gods in place of one God; the Jews assume the same thing, and Jehovah's witnesses time and again retort with the logic that three cannot be one and one cannot be three, while the Unitarians have left the mainstream of Christianity because they found it impossible to accept this idea.
....
Once again, not understood, incomprehensible and unimaginable. Is it meaningful to make such a notion a crux of the tradition? I think that that's asking too much. People have to have studied theology for years to be able to understand the ins and outs of the matter. Most Christians don't have these years to spare. Then is it to be accepted without being understood? The Eastern church took this direction, and turned it into liturgy: the most holy mystery of the Holy Trinity as the centre of the celebration of God's presence. We can be content with that: mysteries needn't be understood, they're worshipped.

But the Western world wanted to see a doctrine here, and doctrines serve to prompt understanding. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't capable of that, yet what it is stating is fundamental to the Christian tradition of faith. God was present in Jesus Christ. That is and remains the distinctive feature of Christian faith. But to put that in terms of a complete doctrine of the Trinity, and then elevate it to be the foundation of all reflection on God and his salvation is theology: holy speculation if you like, but speculation. This is not only legitimate but also necessary; we honour God when we know what we're doing. However, Augustine was already honest enough about his own statements about one Being and three persons to say: I'm not speaking in order to say something, but in order not to be completely silent. That sounds very modest. Here Augustine recognizes that he is making no claims, yet wants to say something. Let's make that the characteristic of the doctrine of the Trinity. It's a way of talking which Christianity has if it doesn't want to be completely silent. But is it a doctrine which brings insight or offers an answer? The idea of one substance and three persons seems to fall short of that.
(H.M. Kuitert, I Have My Doubts: How to become a Christian Without Being a Fundamentalist, pub. SCM, London & Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA)

first, i have some questions - i am sure some of them have been answered, but i will ask anyway.

-- why does Genesis 1 say let US make man in our own immage?
-- who was in heaven when Christ was on earth? who spoke from heaven when Christ was on earth? what was the sybolism of the descending dove at Christ's baptism? in other words, at times when there seem to be all three members of the Trinity going on, how do Swedenborgians explain that?

these questions as well, get to the humanity and divinity of Christ.

Swedenborg's explaination of what the Trinity is , in fact, is not taught anywhere in Scripture ( that i know of).that means that His interpretation is as fallible as the next guy,s. to deny the Trinity as it is traditionally known is one thing, but it is another idea all together to espouse a new belief with little to no support for it from the Bible. perhaps we can discuss the Biblical notions behind the whole trinity idea.

also - what does glorified His humanity mean?

"-- why does Genesis 1 say let US make man in our own image?"

Part of the explanation involves understanding the whole (large!) concept of masculinity and femininity as presented (revealed?!) by Swedenborg. For it was in the image of God created He "them" - i.e. the combination of masculine and feminine. The marriage of man and woman is central to the purpose of creation, which was to build a heaven from the human race. And in heaven the angels are married. Man and woman are each in effect incomplete, and it is only in the spiritually complete married "man," as in this Genesis statement, that there is the true image of God. (Yes, Christ said there was no marriage in heaven. He was talking to the Jews, whose concept of marriage was chauvinist in the extreme, virtually of the husband owning the wife like a piece of property. There is certainly no marriage like that in heaven.)

"-- who was in heaven when Christ was on earth? who spoke from heaven when Christ was on earth? what was the symbolism of the descending dove at Christ's baptism? in other words, at times when there seem to be all three members of the Trinity going on, how do Swedenborgians explain that?"

Our soul is in the spiritual world at the same time as our body is here. It was no different with Christ. The speaking from heaven and the dove are explained by the same mechanism that explains the burning bush, the Christmas star, the miracle of Pentecost and other miracles - the people involved were allowed to some degree to see into (and hear) the spiritual world. That world is heavily symbolic in many respects - as graphically illustrated by the symbol -rich visions of the prophets and Revelation. The dove was just one such symbol, but seen by more than just a single prophet, just as Pentecost was.

"Swedenborg's explanation of what the Trinity is , in fact, is not taught anywhere in Scripture ( that i know of).that means that His interpretation is as fallible as the next guy,s. to deny the Trinity as it is traditionally known is one thing, but it is another idea all together to espouse a new belief with little to no support for it from the Bible."

Well, as we've been discussing, you can also make the case that the Bible doesn't teach a Trinity of person itself! I think the bottom line here once again comes back to whether or not you believe Swedenborg had a divine revelation. If he didn't, yes, certainly "His interpretation is as fallible as the next guy's". If, on the other hand, it is real, then it by definition is going to teach things you hadn't expected. If people already knew and believed these things, there would have been no need for a new revelation! In fact, Swedenborg says, 2000 years of human-derived Christian theology had so distorted the true Christian message that a new "update" was needed (although, actually, Swedenborg says the Christian church's interpretation of the gospel message was already in spiritual deep water by the Council of Nicea in 325).

"also - what does glorified His humanity mean?"

Another enormous subject! But to attempt a brief summary: Christ had a Divine soul but a human body and mind derived from Mary. This duality was necessary for His purpose of coming into the world, which was to put the hells back into order. Things had gotten so bad spiritually that man's free will was threatened. God plays by His own rules of creation, so the only way He could fix this was to take on some aspects of mortal man so that the hells could attack him (as they obviously could not attack God as He is in Himself) and He could defeat them and so restore spiritual order and free will. Part of this process involved the "glorification" of the Mary part, converting the natural into the spiritual. One result of this was that He, unlike man, took his body to heaven, which is why the tomb was empty at Easter. Since, obviously, you can't take material substance to the spiritual world, his body had to be converted, or "glorified," into spiritual - actually Divine - substance to make this work. But again, this is hardly an introduction to a huge and central concept to the New Church's idea of the spiritual process of the incarnation, and its role in literally saving man from himself.

Kurt writes:

>>Another enormous subject! But to attempt a brief summary: Christ had a Divine
>>soul but a human body and mind derived from Mary. This duality was necessary
>>for His purpose of coming into the world,

>>which was to put the hells back into order.

Here is a big problem I'd like to know where there is any Scripture that you can use to support this claim?

>> Things had gotten so bad spiritually that man's free will was threatened.
>>God plays by His own rules of creation, so the only way He could fix this was to
>>take on some aspects of mortal man so that the hells could attack him

Again this is a drastic departure from what Scripture clearly teaches as to why Jesus came to earth. Another question is and Swedenborgians are big on things making "sense" It doesn't make sense for God to become "human" - flesh for the "hells" to attack Him or for Him to defeat them. Why does God have to become flesh to fight spirit? God is Spirit and so are devils or the "hells" so how does He becoming flesh defeat spiritual battles? Even we are taught in Ephesians that we war not against flesh and blood but against the powers in the "spirit"

>> (as they obviously could not attack God as He is in Himself)

Why not? The Bible mentions war in heaven and also Swedenborg himself says that the "hells" were getting into heaven. If that was the case and God is God why didn't he just rebuke the hells and tell them to get back where they belong? After all He created the heavens and the earth with His Word so why not defeat the hells with His Word. That would make more sense to me if that was the reason why He needed to Come. But Then I guess since the Genesis creation isn't real to you that wouldn't work for you. So also but of the subject How did God create the earth? Does Swedenborg teach evolution?

>>and He could defeat them and so restore spiritual order and free will. Part of this process involved the
>>"glorification" of the Mary part, converting the natural into the spiritual. One
>>result of this was that He, unlike man, took his body to heaven, which is why the
>>tomb was empty at Easter. Since, obviously, you can't take material substance
>>to the spiritual world, his body had to be converted, or "glorified," into spiritual -
>>actually Divine - substance to make this work. But again, this is hardly an
>> introduction to a huge and central concept to the New Church's idea of the
>>spiritual process of the incarnation, and its role in literally saving man from himself.

"Kurt writes:
>>Another enormous subject! But to attempt a brief summary: Christ had a Divine
>>soul but a human body and mind derived from Mary. This duality was necessary
>>for His purpose of coming into the world,
>>which was to put the hells back into order.
Here is a big problem I'd like to know where there is any Scripture that you can use to support this claim?"

Off the top of my head (and Lee or someone more expert may correct me) I can't think of anywhere this is said openly, although it is referred to correspondentially throughout Scripture. This is an extremely deep and profound doctrine that would seem to have fallen under the "you cannot bear them now" statement of Christ's, as far as not being included in the Bible's plain teaching.

">> Things had gotten so bad spiritually that man's free will was threatened.
>>God plays by His own rules of creation, so the only way He could fix this was to
>>take on some aspects of mortal man so that the hells could attack him
Again this is a drastic departure from what Scripture clearly teaches as to why Jesus came to earth."

Again, the spiritual complexities are beyond the level of what was able to be revealed at the first coming, according to Swedenborg.

"Another question is and Swedenborgians are big on things making "sense" It doesn't make sense for God to become "human" - flesh for the "hells" to attack Him or for Him to defeat them. Why does God have to become flesh to fight spirit? God is Spirit and so are devils or the "hells" so how does He becoming flesh defeat spiritual battles? Even we are taught in Ephesians that we war not against flesh and blood but against the powers in the "spirit" "
>> (as they obviously could not attack God as He is in Himself)
Why not? The Bible mentions war in heaven and also Swedenborg himself says that the "hells" were getting into heaven. If that was the case and God is God why didn't he just rebuke the hells and tell them to get back where they belong? After all He created the heavens and the earth with His Word so why not defeat the hells with His Word."

As I commented in my original post, God plays by His own rules. The alternative would be what you logically have to imply in your question "why didn't he just rebuke the hells and tell them to get back where they belong? After all He created the heavens and the earth with His Word so why not defeat the hells with His Word." The trouble with this logic is that it denies the point of Christ coming at all. If God is all powerful, why didn't He just fix things? Why would He have to go through this whole routine of sending Christ in th first place? The only logical answer - to me, at least - is. again, because God had to play by the rules He set up, and one of those rules is that He had to take on temptations as a man, in the world, so the hells could approach and tempt Him. The Writings say that sometimes Christ was in a state of obscurity, from His human "half", and it is then that He made the statements sounding as if He regarded God as a separate person. Other times He was in a state of clarity, when He would realize fully that "I and my Father are one." This whole situation of God and man coexisting in the man Christ is deep stuff, not given so short explanations!

" So also but of the subject How did God create the earth? Does Swedenborg teach evolution?"

Swedenborg teaches that God works by orderly processes that He establishes. One of those processes appears to be something science has developed a hypothesis for that science labels "evolution." As is always the case with science, however, it can only look at physical externals. It can't look at the spiritual reality within that is the origin of all such physical externals. There was a process of preparation of the physical vessel that came to be filled with spirit that then became man. What that process was is very complex, involving discrete degrees, etc., again much too big a topic to get into here. But the point is, God created everything by orderly processes He ordained. Including man.

" But again, this is hardly an
>> introduction to a huge and central concept to the New Church's idea of the
>>spiritual process of the incarnation, and its role in literally saving man from himself.
I am concerned here because it sounds like you are denying that Jesus rose with the same body He dies with in which case you are actually denying the resurrection."

If you mean the physical body, no, He did not rise with that because it was a physical body and by definition could not exist on the spiritual plane. But He converted that body to spiritual substance in the glorification. Again, He follows the orderly laws He set up for the universe, spiritual as well as natural, so He certainly wouldn't violate those laws here, of all places.

" The Bible teaches that Jesus rose with the same body of FLESH that He died in. He rose with the same body but now glorified which we are also taught we all will have when Jesus returns in the flesh we also will get bodies just like Him. Any departure from this is one form or another of denying the resurrection."

I would just suggest that this is one interpretation of what Scripture teaches, and that there are other interpretations. A huge subject. One thing to think about is that Swedenborg says that the new spiritual bodies we are given on the other side are so superior to the ones we had here, with extraordinary perceptions, for instance, that no one would want to go back to the cramped limitations of their earthly body. (And since, of course, all earthly bodies over the millennia have died and re-entered the ecosystem and the ecosystem products then consumed by other bodies, and this cycle endlessly repeated. So physical resurrection would require violation of physical law to regenerate those original bodies. God could do this, of course. But, again, it would require violating His own physical laws.)

“Another enormous subject! But to attempt a brief summary: Christ had a Divine soul but a human body and mind derived from Mary. This duality was necessary for His purpose of coming into the world, which was to put the hells back into order.”

This is what I suspected, but was never able to write. If the Father is the soul of the Godhead than Christ indeed would HAVE TO have a divine soul as Kurt has articulated here. This however would mean that He did not have a human soul and in fact would not be fully human – as I have suggested before.

Maybe someone could comment on this.

Also – David definitely add the 2nd Coming doctrines to the list – good one that I forgot.

This is where people get into trouble, error, heresy etc. you could make up any doctrine and justify it by saying "Trust me, You cannot bear them now" clause. This to me is the real "blind faith" because you are taking one man's Word over the Bible as to Truth. This is incredible dangerous. And I might add this a trait or mark of something a cult does

Kurt wrote: "Again, the spiritual complexities are beyond the level of what was able to be revealed at the first coming, according to Swedenborg."

As stated above, plus if man or the "culture" wasn't ready then why didn't God just wait until now to send Jesus? Plus the culture now is much more "grown up" then even when Swedenborg was around so it appears to me now would be a better time for a new revelation or are you waiting for a 3rd coming, revelation? After all why not have another Swedenborg come along and give a even deeper meaning to the deeper meaning for us who are now even more culturally mature? This also contradicts what Jesus plainly taught that the kingdom of God was not difficult or hard to understand in fact just the opposite Jesus said we must become as children to enter the kingdom of heaven and understand it right?

Kurt wrote: As I commented in my original post, God plays by His own rules.

Interesting here is that for this you claim that God plays by His own rules yet in another post you say God wouldn't be playing fair if He sent people to hell etc. But what if those are God's rules? Then as Paul said in Romans "who are you oh man to argue with God about what He does?

Kurt wrote: "The alternative would be what you logically have to imply in your question "why didn't he just rebuke the hells and tell them to get back where they belong? After all He created the heavens and the earth with His Word so why not defeat the hells with His Word." The trouble with this logic is that it denies the point of Christ coming at all. If God is all powerful, why didn't He just fix things? Why would He have to go through this whole routine of sending Christ in th first place? The only logical answer - to me, at least - is. again, because God had to play by
the rules He set up, and one of those rules is that He had to take on temptations as a man, in the world, so the hells could approach and tempt Him."

Do you have a list of the rules God has to "play by"? Actually that is part of what we are saying is that God set up these "rules" and that is there is only one way to Him through Jesus, and only through the shedding of blood is there remission of sins - only through the blood of Jesus. These are all "rules" God has clearly presented in the Bible and now Swedenborg comes along and wants to change the rules.

Kurt wrote: "The Writings say that sometimes Christ was in a state of obscurity, from His
human "half", and it is then that He made the statements sounding as if He regarded God as a separate person. Other times He was in a state of clarity, when He would realize fully that "I and my Father are one." This whole situation of God and man coexisting in the man Christ is deep stuff, not given so short
explanations!

So, what you are saying is that there were times when Jesus was confused? Right? Because that's what you are actually implying. Almost like He wasn't quite sure if He was God or what. I think a better understanding is that He has 2 natures one 100% God the other 100% man

I am concerned here because it sounds like you are denying that Jesus rose with the same body He dies with in which case you are actually denying the resurrection."

Kurt wrote: "If you mean the physical body, no, He did not rise with that because it was a physical body and by definition could not exist on the spiritual plane. But He converted that body to spiritual substance in the glorification. Again, He follows
the orderly laws He set up for the universe, spiritual as well as natural, so He certainly wouldn't violate those laws here, of all places."

Actually He has and does violate those laws when He wants to. Like Joshua's longest day, But I don't think you guys believe that actually happened So lets look at something more recent like the miracles of Jesus and Raising people from the dead, or Moses and the parting of the red sea all these and any miracle violates the natural laws of nature. But since God made the laws HE has a right to break em when He needs to. I think this is another serious topic about the bodily resurrection of Jesus because you are actually denying the resurrection and it is important or "one of the Rules" that we acknowledge this but I need to get more info on this topic.

" The Bible teaches that Jesus rose with the same body of FLESH that He died in. He rose with the same body but now glorified which we are also taught we
all will have when Jesus returns in the flesh we also will get bodies just like Him.
Any departure from this is one form or another of denying the resurrection."

Kurt wrote "I would just suggest that this is one interpretation of what Scripture teaches,
and that there are other interpretations."

Some things are not open to different interpretation. Rules are not given to different interpretaion or that would end up in chaos. Imaging if the rules of traffic lights what if I interpret red lights as go while you interpret it as stop what would happen if we met at a intersection? See some of these topics are actually God's "Rules" and if you interrpet a ruld wrong then you can't end up in serious trouble

Kurt wrote: "A huge subject. One thing to think about is that Swedenborg says that the new spiritual bodies we are given on
the other side are so superior to the ones we had here, with extraordinary perceptions, for instance, that no one would want to go back to the cramped limitations of their earthly body. (And since, of course, all earthly bodies over the millennia have died and re-entered the ecosystem and the ecosystem
products then consumed by other bodies, and this cycle endlessly repeated. So physical resurrection would require violation of physical law to regenerate those original bodies. God could do this, of course. But, again, it would require violating His own physical laws.)"

Again it is not wrong for God to go against natural laws at times and actually since God made this one of His "Rules" or laws that we would be raised in our bodies then that rules or law supersedes the natural law and therefore isn't breaking it at all. Also we won't have these frail bodies they will be raised and changed to bodies like Jesus. It is still flesh and blood but it is also supernatural

" If the
Father is the soul of the Godhead than Christ indeed would
HAVE TO have a divine soul as Kurt has articulated here. This
however would mean that He did not have a human soul and in
fact would not be fully human – as I have suggested before."

The basic Swedenborg idea is in fact that the essential aspect of Christ was a Divine soul in a human body. This in fact explains Christ's conception. It was not a "virgin" birth, technically speaking, since there was a father. In all conception, Swedenborg says, the soul comes from the father and the covering of the soul from the mother. In Christ's case there was a Divine father but, once again, God followed His own rules, in this case of conception. So God was both God and man, but his soul was Divine, which is indeed "human" (since God is the essential human, whose image we are all in) but not human as you and I.

This is where people get into trouble, error, heresy etc. you
could make up any doctrine and justify it by saying "Trust me,
You cannot bear them now" clause. This to me is the real "blind
faith" because you are taking one man's Word over the Bible as
to Truth. This is incredible dangerous. And I might add this a
trait or mark of something a cult does"

Well, some would say believing in the Bible is blind faith, that there's no real historical proof Christ ever existed, no proof of eternal life, etc. etc. But I think the bottom line is that all religion is based on faith, period. In free will, it could be no other way. And I do have to say that, whatever else it may be, getting your head around the enormous and heavily rationalist doctrine of the New Church is about as far from simple "blind" faith as I think you can get in religions!

"Kurt wrote: "Again, the spiritual complexities are beyond the
level of what was able to be revealed at the first coming,
according to Swedenborg."

"As stated above, plus if man or the "culture" wasn't ready then
why didn't God just wait until now to send Jesus?"

I think God probably has pretty good reasons for all the things He does and when He does them. We may not always understand those reasons, but if He is who He says He is, He's probably got it right!

"Plus the
culture now is much more "grown up" then even when
Swedenborg was around so it appears to me now would be a
better time for a new revelation or are you waiting for a 3rd
coming, revelation? After all why not have another Swedenborg
come along and give a even deeper meaning to the deeper
meaning for us who are now even more culturally mature?"

Well, I realize you're being facetious, but Swedenborg says his is the final revelation. This is as full a description of the spiritual facts as man needs or can deal with. Between the revelation of the Bible and that of Swedenborg, there is more truth to be learned here than can be mastered in a human lifetime, even by the most focussed theologian. So, just at a practical level, there wouldn't be any point in adding further revelation. Besides, the Writings at least suggest, and some would put it more strongly, that these teachings will already ultimately take us to the new Golden Age right here on earth. All that and heaven to: What more doctrine do we need?

"This
also contradicts what Jesus plainly taught that the kingdom of
God was not difficult or hard to understand in fact just the
opposite Jesus said we must become as children to enter the
kingdom of heaven and understand it right?"

The essence of childhood is innocence, the willingness to trust and be led. Developing that trait as an adult, what Swedenborg calls the innocence of wisdom, is very adult and very challenging. And needs, for at least some, the kind of heavyweight explanation Swedenborg - or God through Swedenborg - provides. So,as in most profound truth, the truth of a good life and of heaven is both simple and complicated, depending how you think about it. But we do indeed need to become as little children in developing a real willingness - as full rational adults - to be led by the Lord.

"Kurt wrote: As I commented in my original post, God plays by
His own rules.

"Interesting here is that for this you claim that God plays by His
own rules yet in another post you say God wouldn't be playing
fair if He sent people to hell etc. But what if those are God's
rules?"

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here.
God playing by His own rules is exactly the reason there is free will and He doesn't send people to hell.

"Then as Paul said in Romans "who are you oh man to argue with God about what He does?"

I don't think we're talking about arguing with God, but trying to understand Him.

"Do you have a list of the rules God has to "play by"?"

Swedenborg does list a good number of them, in fact, most famously the laws of Divine Providence.

"Actually
that is part of what we are saying is that God set up these
"rules" and that is there is only one way to Him through Jesus,
and only through the shedding of blood is there remission of
sins - only through the blood of Jesus. These are all "rules" God
has clearly presented in the Bible and now Swedenborg comes
along and wants to change the rules."

Well, once again, I don't think what we're talking about here is changing rules, but of coming to understand them more deeply. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time... but I say unto you..." God's later revelations don't contradict earlier ones since His truth, of course, is one. But they do provide deeper insights, as demonstrated by Christ expounding on the more inner meaning of the Mosaic law.

"Kurt wrote: "The Writings say that sometimes Christ was in a
state of obscurity, from His
human "half", and it is then that He made the statements
sounding as if He regarded God as a separate person. Other
times He was in a state of clarity, when He would realize fully
that "I and my Father are one." This whole situation of God and
man coexisting in the man Christ is deep stuff, not given so
short
explanations!"
" So, what you are saying is that there were times when Jesus
was confused? Right? Because that's what you are actually
implying. Almost like He wasn't quite sure if He was God or
what."

I would just suggest treading very lightly here for this is certainly holy ground. For the infinite God of the universe to take on a human mind and body is a stunning occurrence and in some sense outright impossible to comprehend. I would very much not dismiss it lightly with comments about Jesus being "confused". I don't think you have to believe Swedenborg to appreciate that there were stupendous spiritual events going on here. So, again, I would just suggest stepping cautiously.

"I think a better understanding is that He has 2 natures
one 100% God the other 100% man"

Well, to me this sounds like the logical contradiction in the idea of a Trinity that is at the same time 3 people and one God. By definition, you can't be 100% of more than one thing.

"I am concerned here because it sounds like you are denying
that Jesus rose with the same body He dies with in which case
you are actually denying the resurrection."

Once again, I don't follow your logic. How does the idea that He changed His body from physical to spiritual (actually Divine) substance in any way interfere with the resurrection. On the contrary, as noted before, that change was necessary to make the resurrection possible, according to Swedenborg. Again, God does not violate the physical laws of the universe any more than the spiritual.

"Actually He has and does violate those laws when He wants to."

I would suggest to you that, on the contrary, God, the very origin of order itself, not only does not but literally cannot violate that order. If he became disorderly, He would not be God.

"Like Joshua's longest day, But I don't think you guys believe
that actually happened."

I don't know what gave you that idea. What Swedenborg does do, in fact, is to explain how miracles worked, not denied them.

"So lets look at something more recent
like the miracles of Jesus and Raising people from the dead, or
Moses and the parting of the red sea all these and any miracle
violates the natural laws of nature."

Actually, again, no, He didn't violate any laws, nor did He need to. There are perfectly plausible mechanisms He could have used in every case that are in keeping with order. Healing, for instance, occurs in all of us as the result of influx, and we can tune our human vessel to in effect improve receptivity to that influx (e.g. this may be the spiritual mechanism behind antibiotic's effectiveness). Too big a subject, once again, to get into here. But, again, no need for any violation of physical or spiritual law.

"But since God made the
laws HE has a right to break em when He needs to."

The problem is that He doesn't want to. And can't. Again, He is order itself.

"I think this
is another serious topic about the bodily resurrection of Jesus
because you are actually denying the resurrection"

I am not clear how a fuller explanation of the resurrection than was given in earlier revelations constitutes denying the resurrection. Clarification please!

"Kurt wrote "I would just suggest that this is one interpretation
of what Scripture teaches,
and that there are other interpretations."

Some things are not open to different interpretation. Rules are
not given to different interpretaion or that would end up in
chaos."

In fact, if there weren't the possibility of different interpretations, there would be no free will. Everyone would have to believe the party line, everyone would go to heaven, making creation of the pre-heaven physical universe pointless and God self-centered you-have-to-love-me evil.

"If you interrpet a ruld wrong then
you can't end up in serious trouble"

I think you mean can end up in serious trouble. And the answer is, no, you can't, because there is Divine Providence that takes care of all this.

"Also we won't have these frail bodies they will be raised and
changed to bodies like Jesus. It is still flesh and blood but it is
also supernatural."

Well, since Jesus' body was raised to the Divine degree, and we'll only be going to the spiritual, there is some difference here, according to Swedenborg, but those new bodies will certainly be "super" - i.e. above - natural!

Kurt

as far as evolution goes, my understanding is that evolution has been scientifically disproven in academia - but as usual, it is taking a while to filter down to the "little people". anyway - that is just my understanding - i could be wrong. also the "natural law" of evolution is contradicted by other laws of nature.

YOU WROTE:
"So God was both God and man, but his soul was Divine, which is indeed "human" (since God is the essential human, whose image we are all in) but not human as you and I."

there is nothing human about God - nothing. the idea of God being holy is not only that He is perfect, but also that He is transcendent above all. there are things that are "Godly" ("Godish"? - whatever made-up word works best for you) about man however, and the difference is not just semantical - it is a difference in perspective. to be honest - this just sounds like an elaborate explaination for denying the full humanity of Christ. By the way, where does the Holy Spirit fit in with the incarnation? was that Christ's affect on the world, because it is essential to affirm that Christ had a human spirit.

"The Writings say that sometimes Christ was in a
state of obscurity, from His
human "half", and it is then that He made the statements
sounding as if He regarded God as a separate person. Other
times He was in a state of clarity, when He would realize fully
that "I and my Father are one." This whole situation of God and
man coexisting in the man Christ is deep stuff, not given so
short
explanations!"
" So, what you are saying is that there were times when Jesus
was confused? Right? Because that's what you are actually
implying. Almost like He wasn't quite sure if He was God or
what."
I would just suggest treading very lightly here for this is certainly holy ground. For the infinite God of the universe to take on a human mind and body is a stunning occurrence and in some sense outright impossible to comprehend. I would very much not dismiss it lightly with comments about Jesus being "confused". I don't think you have to believe Swedenborg to appreciate that there were stupendous spiritual events going on here. So, again, I would just suggest stepping cautiously.

----- granted, we must be careful here, but i believe we can discuss the issue. really, there was no answer given for David's question - which is a good one. i would be interested to hear an explaination of these events. i do not believe that Jesus knew everything when He was on earth - He says so Himself (He did not know if there was an alternative to the cross or not, and He did not know the exact time of His return). however, there is one thing that He was clear about from the beginning, and that was that He was the Messiah. i would have trouble understanding how He would be confused about who He was when He refers to it so many times.

""I think a better understanding is that He has 2 natures
one 100% God the other 100% man"
Well, to me this sounds like the logical contradiction in the idea of a Trinity that is at the same time 3 people and one God. By definition, you can't be 100% of more than one thing."

----- you just did say that there were profound and awesome things going on at this point, but you are not willing to accept that Christ was fully man and fully God because you see it as a logical contradiction. i see that line of reasoning as a contradiction. i believe that the Word of God says that Christ was fully man and fully God, and the Word does not lie.

"as far as evolution goes, my understanding is that evolution has been scientifically disproven in academia - but as usual, it is taking a while to filter down to the "little people". anyway - that is just my understanding - i could be wrong. also the "natural law" of evolution is contradicted by other laws of nature."

The whole evolution/creationist debate is an unhappy example of what happens when religion and science are set in opposition. Issues are muddied instead of clarified. Evolution has never been "proven" or "disproven." It is a scientific hypothesis proposed to explain a set of data, just as the "law" of gravity is actually a hypothesis to explain other data (and if you think gravity is unarguable and straightforward, ask a physicist about its origins!). And evolution as a theory (or whole bunch of related theories, actually) is certainly alive and well. But there is certainly nothing in it to upset any religionist. Science, by definition, only addresses the physical world. It hasn't got a clue about spiritual reality, which it can't test under the scientific paradigm. So it really only has theories for that very limited slice of reality. The fact that some people may want to abuse the science "game" and make statements supposedly based on it about ultimate spiritual causality doesn't change the fact of what science in fact can be used to say. Add to this the fact that God may work in physical "scientific" externals by means that appear as "evolution" to accomplish His purposes of developing a form capable of receiving the human spirit and you eliminate the conflict. Both spiritual and natural law operate, together as always, to produce God's ends.

"YOU WROTE:
"So God was both God and man, but his soul was Divine, which is indeed "human" (since God is the essential human, whose image we are all in) but not human as you and I."
there is nothing human about God - nothing. the idea of God being holy is not only that He is perfect, but also that He is transcendent above all. there are things that are "Godly" ("Godish"? - whatever made-up word works best for you) about man however, and the difference is not just semantical - it is a difference in perspective. to be honest - this just sounds like an elaborate explaination for denying the full humanity of Christ."

Actually, I think the problem we have here is just exactly semantics, i.e. just what you mean by the word "human." In common usage, which I think you are referring to here, it means mortal man. Without being as careful as I should have been, I was using the word in the larger context that Swedenborg does. God is the original and ultimate "human", Swedenborg says, in the sense that He is a combination of Divine Love and Divine Wisdom, which are the origin and source of the two fundamental features of human spiritual and mental existence, will and understanding. These faculties are what distinguish, at the spiritual level, man from all other creatures. So Christ was definitely human in this sense. But He was at the same time also human in the sense I think you mean, i.e. with a mortal body and (in part, at least) mind.

"By the way, where does the Holy Spirit fit in with the incarnation? was that Christ's affect on the world, because it is essential to affirm that Christ had a human spirit."

I don't think it's meaningful to separate a man from his soul. So in this case I think it would be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit was the "effect" result of the action of both Christ's soul (i.e. God) and body. As far as what exactly Christ's spirit was - well, ultimately it was, again, God. But Christ did take on human heredity to allow Him to fight off and clean up the terrible evils that had accumulated in that heredity. How those two aspects of His spirit interacted, well, deep water and I'm not sure I adequately understand it yet - nor am I sure, ultimately, that we can fully understand this extraordinary fusion!

""----- granted, we must be careful here, but i believe we can discuss the issue. really, there was no answer given for David's question - which is a good one. i would be interested to hear an explaination of these events. i do not believe that Jesus knew everything when He was on earth - He says so Himself (He did not know if there was an alternative to the cross or not, and He did not know the exact time of His return). however, there is one thing that He was clear about from the beginning, and that was that He was the Messiah. i would have trouble understanding how He would be confused about who He was when He refers to it so many times."

Well, maybe I was just objecting to the word "confused." It was much deeper than that, though I'm not sure I have anything like the kind of understanding of the profound doctrine involved here to give the best explanation(!). The Writings explain, as I noted, that Christ alternated between states of obscurity and states of clarity, in effect. This is just the logical extrapolation of the conditions of His coming. He took on some human - or rather, to be clear here, mortal - aspects simultaneously with being God. Hard to think about (!) but inescapable if, again, He was going to make it possible for the hells to approach and tempt Him. I mean, think about it - the hells tempting God? It sounds ridiculous and impossible. So clearly something mighty unusual was going on here! In any case, at least as I understand it, when the Mary-human aspect was dominant, He was in a state of obscurity, necessary to allow the hells to approach and Him to be tempted. When He was conscious of being God, as He fought off and reordered the hells, then He came into a state of clarity. When He was in the state of obscurity, He would sometimes, for instance, pray to the Father as if the Father were someone else, in an internal dialogue that was, as I understand it, similar to the way we all have internal conversations with ourselves about issues - but obviously on a lot bigger scale! But the point is that this was an internal dialogue by one Person, not a communication between two people.

"""I think a better understanding is that He has 2 natures
one 100% God the other 100% man"
Well, to me this sounds like the logical contradiction in the idea of a Trinity that is at the same time 3 people and one God. By definition, you can't be 100% of more than one thing."
----- you just did say that there were profound and awesome things going on at this point, but you are not willing to accept that Christ was fully man and fully God because you see it as a logical contradiction. i see that line of reasoning as a contradiction. i believe that the Word of God says that Christ was fully man and fully God, and the Word does not lie."

I think we're back to semantics again. To say someone can be 100% of two things is either a misuse of the term "100%" or it makes the term meaningless. As far as what the Word itself says, I would be interested to know the exact translation of the term "fully". My guess is that what the concept being communicated here is is that the union of Divine and mortal human was "full" in the sense of complete. And I don't think the question here is of the Word lying. It's a question of us trying to understand its sometimes almost incomprehensibly profound teachings. Again, God fusing with mortal man - what a concept to try to get your head around!

"Finally, i agree with David that you are getting very close to denying the resurrection of Christ."

I hope you'll forgive me saying so, but I find this comment enormously ironic. Swedenborg (or God Himself, if He did in fact provide the revelation) has an explanation of the incarnation and resurrection that is just light years beyond anything Christianity has ever had access to in its whole 2,000 year history, putting the process for the first time into a fully explained spiritual (and Divine) context. Yet that explanation is viewed as denying the resurrection? Well, if Swedenborg's revelation is in fact legitimate, this is certainly a classic instance of a prophet (i.e. God's explanation) without honor in his own country!

"Christ was resurrected (and appeared again to His apostles) with His recognizabe body: a body that had scars on it. a body that ate. but also one that could (apparently) walk through walls (it is different) . maybe you could clarify more about what you think Swedenborg teaches about the resurrection."

Here again, as in so many other miracles, what was happening in the post-resurrection appearances was that those who saw Christ were being allowed to see into the spiritual world, where He at that point was (the same process, incidentally, by which the angels were seen on Easter morning). There was no walking through walls in the physical world (again, God doesn't violate physical law!) since Christ wasn't in the physical world. He appeared to those who saw Him as He had appeared in this world because, presumably (can't remember if Swedenborg says this explicitly), He was accommodating to their perceptions. He appears differently in other contexts for other purposes (e.g. in the visions of the book of Revelation).

First, a comment about Swedenborg and evolution:

Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of the Species in 1859, long after Swedenborg's death, which happened in 1772. So the idea of evolution hadn't even been proposed in Swedenborg's day.

Swedenborg believed that the various species arose by spontaneous generation, or "special creation" in more religious terms, which was accomplished by an inflow of spirit into matter, directed by God, similar to what happens in the miracles of the Bible. He said that at the time of the creation of each species, it was equipped with means of reproducing itself biologically, and continued in existence in that way afterwards.

I would say that most Swedenborgians no longer accept this view--if they have an opinion about it at all--but this is what Swedenborg believed.

Now the question:

David, Jamie, and others seem to be laying a lot of emphasis on the physical resurrection of Jesus in a material body. I am wondering what is your Biblical basis for this, and why you consider it to be so important?

I am not particularly asking this to challenge. I do believe that Jesus rose with his whole body--though I'm not sure the Bible is clear about what that body was made of. Mainly, I am trying to understand your position, because it doesn't seem to be something that the Bible particularly emphasizes. So I am wondering why it has apparently become such a major doctrine for you.

Thank you for your responses.

it is important to note, as i did before, that Christ's resurrected body was scared, it was recognizable as Him and He was hungry, and ate with His disciples. however, He also (apparently) walked through walls. His body was different, and yet very similar (physically speaking) to His earthly body.

also, 1 Cor. tells us that we will be raised in a like manner to Him. therefore, we too will be raised physically from the dead - as the phrase "raised from the dead" implies - and will have new glorified bodies.

as far as what Kurt has written, the reason that both David (i think this would be accurate to say of him too) and myself have not stated that he has CLEARLY denied the resurrection is that it may still somewhat meets an acceptable standard - although, it is very shaky. i am not sure exactly what Kurt's take on the resurrection is, but if Christs's Body had to be changed into a spiritual body first, then i personally see this as inconsistent with the idea of Christ conquering sin as a man. i believe that Christ's physical body being raised and then glorified is the only way that He had (and ultimately we will have) victory over death. as i have pointed out before, our salvation includes deliverance from death - and although we will all physically die (with few acceptions), we (true believers in Christ) will all be raised from the dead as this Corinthians passage suggests (especially in vss. 54-58).

one final thought. this passage also seems to comment on the nature of original sin and how Adam's sin effected us.

"but if Christs's Body had to be changed into a spiritual body first, then i personally see this as inconsistent with the idea of Christ conquering sin as a man."

Again, I think we come back to what you mean by "man". I think we would both agree that the thing that most distinguishes a man from an animal is his immortal soul. Apes have hands and brains and so on that physically are very human-like. Recent research has shown they can be taught language and they have other human-appearing traits. So if you constrain your definition of human to the physical body, there's something of a problem here. But, if the essential - and eternal - part of man is his soul, then in Christ's case the spiritual and not physical is, again, the essential. So changing His body to spiritual (again, actually Divine) substance would not interfere with His salvation work as a man. Any more than when any of us die and go to the other world change from being man. From Swedenborg's point of view, in fact, Christ's transition of material to spiritual was a key part of the glorification, in which He fully put off the (mortal) human He had originally taken from Mary as part of His final triumph over the hells on (mortal) men's behalf.

"i believe that Christ's physical body being raised and then glorified is the only way that He had (and ultimately we will have) victory over death. as i have pointed out before, our salvation includes deliverance from death."

Here, according to Swedenborg, we once again come up against a term definition, in this case "death." Swedenborg says that the death being referred to here is the spiritual death of going to hell, not the physical death of the body. In other words, Christ did not come to save men from physical death, which is, again, part of the lawful process of life in this world. He came to save men from the death of immersion in evil into eternity in hell.

"1 Cor. tells us that we will be raised in a like manner to Him. therefore, we too will be raised physically from the dead - as the phrase "raised from the dead" implies - and will have new glorified bodies."

Raised like Him, but how much like Him? He rose with His body by the third day. Obviously, whatever you believe about physical body resurrection, it's certainly obvious that nobody else has ever done it that quickly. So clearly, on that basis alone, our resurrection won't be totally like His. Also, since He is God and we aren't, it seems safe to suggest that there may some other differences too! So, bottom line, just how close a copy of His resurrection will ours in fact be?

1 Cor. 15:52 does have that famous phrase about being raised incorruptible - though that appears to me pretty ambiguous as far as whether its physical vs. soul that is so raised. But only 8 verses earlier (i.e. v. 44) in that same chapter it is unambiguously taught that there is a spiritual body separate from the physical body, and in v. 46 that the spiritual one comes after the physical.

“Again, I think we come back to what you mean by
"man". I think we would both agree that the thing
that most distinguishes a man from an animal is his
immortal soul.”

----- it really doesnt matter what you define the essence of humanity as, that was not the point. the point is that Christ conquered sin in a body like ours - that was the essence of what i was saying. this is why there are all the referrences to the second Adam idea in Scripture.

“But, if the essential - and eternal - part of man is
his soul, then in Christ's case the spiritual and not
physical is, again, the essential.”

----- this is not the only essential part that defines a man. man was created in a higher order than all the other animals, and was given dominion over them. also, man is the only created thing that is made to fellowship with God. BUT, that is not the point. the point is that Christ rose with a physical body and appeared to His disciple in a human, but glorified body. this is what the Bible teaches, and that unless His physical body was raised, we (Christians) are to be pitied above all.

“Here, according to Swedenborg, we once again
come up against a term definition, in this case
"death." Swedenborg says that the death being
referred to here is the spiritual death of going to
hell, not the physical death of the body. In other
words, Christ did not come to save men from
physical death, which is, again, part of the lawful
process of life in this world. He came to save men
from the death of immersion in evil into eternity in
hell.”

----- as i have pointed out, most men will die - with very few acceptions that i will not discuss now. this indee is part of the natural law set in motion by sin. however, these men, who are true believers in Christ will be resurrected in the same fashion as He was raised. phrases like ‘Where O death is your victory’ and ‘Where O grave is your sting’ would seem to be very cleary referring to physical death. also I Thessalonians 4:13-14 has some crystal clear thoughts on the idea of the dead in Christ (signifying those who all ready believe in Him who would no longer be at risk for spiritual death) rising again. please read these verses.

“Raised like Him, but how much like Him? He rose
with His body by the third day. Obviously,
whatever you believe about physical body
resurrection, it's certainly obvious that nobody else
has ever done it that quickly. So clearly, on that
basis alone, our resurrection won't be totally like
His. Also, since He is God and we aren't, it seems
safe to suggest that there may some other
differences too! So, bottom line, just how close a
copy of His resurrection will ours in fact be? “

----- 1 Corinthians 15:35 is the whole premise for the discussion in the following verse. the question being answered is “how” (on the basis of Christ’s resurrection) and “with what body” (a body like His). the question being asked and therefore the answer given does not pertain to how long it will be before this happens. also, it does not seem safe to assume that there will be differences between our body and His body, especially since the Bible teaches otherwise. what is safe to assume is that the glory of God will be infinitely more brilliant than the body of any glorified man. however, it seems that when Jesus appeared in His glorified body, He did not appear in His full glory, for no one has seen the glory of God and lived, and if He were to appear in His full glory, it would fill and consume the earth.

“1 Cor. 15:52 does have that famous phrase about
being raised incorruptible - though that appears to
me pretty ambiguous as far as whether its physical
vs. soul that is so raised. But only 8 verses earlier
(i.e. v. 44) in that same chapter it is
unambiguously taught that there is a spiritual body
separate from the physical body, and in v. 46 that
the spiritual one comes after the physical. “

----- yes, i agree, we recieve our glorified bodies (spiritual bodies) after our physical body. this makes verses like vs.36 make more sense when we look at it from that perspective.

Thanks,
God Bless,
Jamie.

"as i have pointed out, most men will die - with very few acceptions that i will not discuss now. this indee is part of the natural law set in motion by sin. however, these men, who are true believers in Christ will be resurrected in the same fashion as He was raised. phrases like ‘Where O death is your victory’ and ‘Where O grave is your sting’ would seem to be very cleary referring to physical death. also I Thessalonians 4:13-14 has some crystal clear thoughts on the idea of the dead in Christ (signifying those who all ready believe in Him who would no longer be at risk for spiritual death) rising again. please read these verses."

I think Jamie's post here illustrates once again how different assumptions, in this case about authority, lead to - very(!)- different conclusions. Jamie believes, apparently, that some men do not die (and, from earlier discussions, that some are created directly as angels or devils in the spiritual world). If Swedenborg's revelation is real, then, of course, neither is true - all men are born first into this world and all men die. Jamie also assumes here that the Thessalonians quote has revelation-level authoritative about the resurrection mechanism, meaning, of course, that whatever Swedenborg wrote on the matter is just human interpretation. I, obviously, assume exactly the reverse - i.e. in this case that the Thessalonians verses are only the reflections of a man trying to make sense out of what He understood of the matter, while Swedenborg is the one who is presenting God's "facts".

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that we have here another demonstration that free will is alive and well. God in His endlessly patient and detailed wisdom has provided both Jamie and I with the things we apparently both need at this moment in our lives as we "ask", "knock" and "seek" for spiritual insight in the paths we are traveling. Having discussions with other travelers is certainly one of our spiritual journey's most interesting features! And if you are of the New Church persuasion, at least, you believe that at journey's end, all those who have sincerely sought these answers will be given them, in the next world if not this one.

----- Just to clarify – the people I am referring to that don’t die are the people that the Bible specifically says did not die – ie. Enoch and Elijah. However, a much larger group of people that will not die (or so I believe because of my views of the end times) are people that are alive at the time of the rapture. the idea of a rapture is discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4. These are the two groups of people that I believe will not or did not die.

----- Also, I do not believe that some MEN are created as devils or angels. I do believe that Angels are created beings, and that demons (equivalent to what you call “devils”) are fallen angels. These beings were created in the spiritual realm, but are certainly not human.

"the people I am referring to that don’t die are the people that the Bible specifically says did not die – ie. Enoch and Elijah. However, a much larger group of people that will not die (or so I believe because of my views of the end times) are people that are alive at the time of the rapture. the idea of a rapture is discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4. These are the two groups of people that I believe will not or did not die."

In Elijah's case, the New Church belief would be that this was once again a miracle-type situation where the observers were allowed to see briefly into the spiritual world. Spiritually speaking, none of us die, of course, but here in the physical world we don't usually see the spiritual "rising" after physical body death. Elijah appears to have been an exception, to say the least. So in fact he did die - i.e. do the transition to the spiritual world that is what death consists of. I'm not clear in the case of Enoch what passage gives the impression he didn't die and would be interested to know.

Thanks for the specific citation for the "rapture." I have heard that term referred to many times but never knew the specific citation. That is quite a passage and I can certainly see that if you believed it was revelation that it makes some pretty explicit statements. The explanation from a New Church point of view that would occur to me - and this is pure speculation on my part, not taught by Swedenborg - is that the writer might have had some kind of mini-vision, seeing symbols in the spiritual world, as did the prophets and Revelation who had full-blown "real" revelations. Thus, for instance, the clouds reference is reminiscent of the prophecies in Matthew and Mark of a coming in the clouds (which Swedenborg says are correspondence (symbols) of the clouds of misunderstanding that the coming will dispel). And the Writings have lots of teachings about good things in the correspondential "air," starting with the birds in the creation story. One example that might be pertinent here is the Arcana (641) teaching that "When angelic spirits flow in, they do so gently like the softest breaths of air," since the death transition process, Swedenborg says, is overseen by angels. v. 18 says this section is intended to provide encouragement and the idea that angels are present at death presumably would be comforting. And, finally, the idea of being with the Lord forever would hold, of course, for whatever means were thought to be used for getting to heaven to begin with.

Again, this is all real shoot-from-the-hip interpretation, for which blame me, not Swedenborg!

"----- Also, I do not believe that some MEN are created as devils or angels. I do believe that Angels are created beings, and that demons (equivalent to what you call “devils”) are fallen angels. These beings were created in the spiritual realm, but are certainly not human."

As we've discussed before, of course, from a New Church point of view, anyone so created would have no free will and thus would be a case of God being disorderly, which of course Swedenborg would say is impossible. The references to Lucifer, etc. are, again, correspondential references. If I have time, I'll look them up (or maybe Lee could help me out here!)

Again, thanks for the explanations.

Kurt

From Heaven and Hell:

544. It has been believed heretofore in the world that there is one devil that presides over the hells; that he was created an angel of light; but having become rebellious he was cast down with his crew into hell. This belief has prevailed because the Devil and Satan, and also Lucifer, are mentioned by name in the Word, and the Word in those places has been understood according to the sense of the letter. But by "the devil" and "Satan" there hell is meant, "devil" meaning the hell that is behind, where the worst dwell, who are called evil genii; and "Satan" the hell that is in front, where the less wicked dwell, who are called evil spirits; and "Lucifer" those that belong to Babel, or Babylon, who would extend their dominion even into heaven. That there is no one devil to whom the hells are subject is evident also from this, that all who are in the hells, like all who are in the heavens, are from the human race (see n. 311-317); and that those who have gone there from the beginning of creation to this time amount to myriads of myriads, and everyone of them is a devil in accord with his opposition to the Divine while he lived in the world (see above, n. 311, 312).

From Arcana Coelestia:

7374. Those people are immersed in love of the world who wish to rake in other people's goods by artful moves they have devised, especially those who resort to trickery and deceit. Those immersed in that love are envious of others' goods and covet them; and to the extent that they have no fear of laws they divest, indeed ransack them of their goods.

7375. These two kinds of love grow in the measure that the restraints placed on them are loosened and in the measure that a person is carried away into them. They eventually grow beyond measure; they become so great that those people wish to have control not only over everything in their own kingdom but also over everything beyond it, even to the ends of the earth. Indeed when the restraints placed on those kinds of love are loosened they reach even up to the God of the universe, that is, they become so great that the people immersed in those loves wish to mount God's throne and be worshipped as God Himself. Their desire is in keeping with the following words in Isaiah regarding Lucifer, by whom are meant those who are immersed in those loves and who are called 'Babel',

You said in your heart, I will go up the heavens, above the stars of God I will raise my throne, and I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the farthest parts of the north. I will go up above the heights of the clouds, and I will make myself like the Most High. But you have been sent down to hell. Isa. 14:13-15.

the Enoch passage is in Genesis 5:21-24. although it does not specifically say that Enoch did not die, that is certainly the implication - it also does not specifically say that Enoch did die - as it does say of all the others listed in the geneology.

i think there will probably be an inherent disagreement on this passage since Swedenborg and the New Church do not believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literally true.

this brings up another question. if the first 11 chapters are not literally true, what happens to the idea of original sin? was there a literal original sin, and if so by whom?

"the Enoch passage is in Genesis 5:21-24. although it does not
specifically say that Enoch did not die, that is certainly the
implication - it also does not specifically say that Enoch did die"

Well, he certainly was old, but doesn't v. 24 say God took him, implying death?

"i think there will probably be an inherent disagreement on this
passage since Swedenborg and the New Church do not believe
that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literally true."

Well, just to be precise, the New Church believes they are spiritually literally true, but not historically in this world as stated (e.g. there was an ordered creation process that follows the sequence indicated, but the story is about the spiritual source of the creation process, told in symbolic terms). In other words, these stories are a parable, as is the whole Bible, even the parts that are literally true history, according to Swedenborg. "Without a parable spoke He not unto them" (Psalm 78, I think.)

"this brings up another question. if the first 11 chapters are not
literally true, what happens to the idea of original sin? was
there a literal original sin, and if so by whom?"

There was no original sin. There was, under free will, the capacity from the very beginning to do sin. In the original Garden of Eden state, or Golden Age, the time of what Swedenborg terms the Most Ancient Church, men didn't choose to exercise that option. But ultimately they did decide to exercise their free will option - represented by deciding to eat of the tree of good and evil (i.e. representing men deciding for themselves what they wanted to think was evil, as opposed to listening to God). The flood, for instance, was the symbol for the flood of evil that ultimately resulted.

In any case, what was begun in the first "fall" of man into deciding to sin was the beginning of an accumulation of spiritual heredity inclined toward sin. Each succeeding generation strengthened that heredity, unfortunately, until it got to the point that men could no longer exist in free will. Their accumulated hereditary evil (as opposed to original sin) got so strong that if the situation hadn't been fixed all men would have gone to hell. I.e. no free will. To rectify that balance was the reason Christ came, and what He spent His time here doing. But that rectifying was done at a spiritual level, with only hints of it able to be seen in the Biblical story of Christ's life.

Kurt wrote: Well, he certainly was old, but doesn't v. 24 say God took him, implying death?

*Kurt, compared to the others listed in this genealogy he was actually quite young. Verse 24 doesn't imply death the Hebrew word for took means "to take, carry away" if this verse was to mean death then why didn't they use the word for death like they did in all the other v.?

"i think there will probably be an inherent disagreement on this passage since Swedenborg and the New Church do not believe
that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literally true."

Kurt Wrote:
Well, just to be precise, the New Church believes they are spiritually literally true, but not historically in this world as stated (e.g. there was an ordered creation process that follows the sequence indicated, but the story is about the spiritual source of the creation process, told in symbolic terms). In other words, these stories are a parable, as is the whole Bible, even the parts that are literally true history, according to Swedenborg. "Without a parable spoke He not unto them" (Psalm 78, I think.)

*Kurt, the case for the first 11 chapters of Genesis been literally true that is historical, is something we will have to discuss. As far as the whole Bible been a parable and then trying to support that with certain Scriptures is a good example of taking Scripture out of context in using it or twisting it to support a new doctrine not found in the rest the Scripture. For instance, claiming the verse above to mean that the whole Bible is a parable, which indicates that you can't take any other literally isn't true. For instance, in the gospel of Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. The Bible reveals that Jesus spoke parable's to the multitudes but to his disciples it says "he expounded all things to his disciples"

"this brings up another question. if the first 11 chapters are not literally true, what happens to the idea of original sin? was
there a literal original sin, and if so by whom?"

Kurt Wrote:
There was no original sin. There was, under free will, the capacity from the very beginning to do sin. In the original Garden of Eden state, or Golden Age, the time of what Swedenborg terms the Most Ancient Church, men didn't choose to exercise that option. But ultimately they did decide to exercise their free will option - represented by deciding to eat of the tree of good and evil (i.e. representing men deciding for themselves what they wanted to think was evil, as opposed to listening to God). The flood, for instance, was the symbol for the flood of evil that ultimately resulted.
In any case, what was begun in the first "fall" of man into deciding to sin was the beginning of an accumulation of spiritual heredity inclined toward sin. Each succeeding generation strengthened that heredity, unfortunately, until it got to the point that men could no longer exist in free will. Their accumulated hereditary evil (as opposed to original sin) got so strong that if the situation hadn't been fixed all men would have gone to hell. I.e. no free will. To rectify that balance was the reason Christ came, and what He spent His time here doing. But that rectifying was done at a spiritual level, with only hints of it able to be seen in the Biblical story of Christ's life.

4151. pneuma, pnyoo'-mah; from G4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Comp. G5590.

Swedenborg teaches to that the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather in the "effect, or force" of God. The above paragraph is the Greek word used for Spirit and ghost in the new Testament, wind referring to the Holy Spirit. Now the first part does say the word can mean a current of air, breath, or breeze. You might try is say that means "effect" but this would not fit in many Scriptures like the ones below. Also note in the above paragraph it lists mental disposition or superhuman or divine God life and mind. These words describe the makeup of a person not an "effect"

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

comforter =875. parakletos, par-ak'-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler:--advocate, comforter.
Look at what comforter means. A intercessor, counselor, advocate, comforter up and even helper are things that only a person can do it to do, not a force or to affect. Now in case you're wondering, John 14: 26 shows that the comforter which is a person is the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

"Verse 24 doesn't imply death the Hebrew word for took means "to take, carry away" if this verse was to mean death then why didn't they use the word for death like they did in all the other v.?"

I'm afraid I'm not enough of a translation expert to comment. I do know that the Writings say that there are often times when there are apparent repetitions in wording, or, as here, near but not precise repetitions, when there is a very specific correspondential reason for that wording. Recall that Swedenborg's main point about the Bible is that it is written to teach spiritual lessons, not just history. So that spiritual internal drives what happens to be chosen as to be included in the external. This word variation would appear one such example.

"As far as the whole Bible been a parable and then trying to support that with certain Scriptures is a good example of taking Scripture out of context in using it or twisting it to support a new doctrine not found in the rest the Scripture."

Well, I would just mention that the Scribes and Pharisees weren't too enthusiastic about Christ "twisting" Mosaic law to support His "new doctrine" either. Recall that if there is in fact free will, then prophecy must always be ambiguous, so that you can believe or disbelieve that it has been fulfilled. One key test, as Christ's teaching demonstrates, is that a new revelation from God should extend and "fulfill" the spiritual understanding of the previous revelation. Obviously there are some who think Swedenborg's revelation does this; others don't. Free will lives!

"this clearly is "another gospel" nowhere are in Scripture we you find support that hereditary evil, Free will, or the subjugation of the hells act is the purpose Christ coming."

Well, again going back to the precedent of the Bible, if the Old Testament had provided all men needed, there never would have been a New Testament. But the additional teaching of the New Testament was needed, so God provided its new and deeper teachings. Similarly, in the Writings, there are new and deeper teachings. Otherwise, what would be the point of having a new revelation?

"Also, if hereditary evil accumulates and builds up in men and in the heavens then that would mean that Christ would have to periodically return to earth again to clean things up?"

Funny you should mention that! In fact, Swedenborg says there has been a whole sequence of churches since the dawn of creation: the Most Ancient, Ancient, Israelitish, first Christian and New Christian churches. In each case when the earlier church fell into human-derived falsities (part of the true "fall" of man), a new church was begun. The new revelation of each was handled differently, based on the spiritual situation of the time, and the sending of Christ was only done when it was done for a good reason. But, again, yes, there have been repeated "comings" in one form or another. But, according to Swedenborg, his revelation is the last because now the full story of spiritual reality has been revealed. This level of knowledge has not been available, he says, since the time of the first men, in the Most Ancient church, when there was pretty open direct awareness of the spiritual world.

"How can the affect or influence of God, teach us, bring to our remembrance, intercede or pray for us, counsel help or advocate? These are all traits in words and functions that describe a person not a thing."

I'm afraid I am having trouble seeing the problem here. God's influence on us is certainly that of a person, not a thing! Let me suggest one thought, however, in case it is relevant: A key concept in our creation is that we are, in some sense, separate from God. Otherwise, once again, we would have no free will. In Swedenborg's terms, our association with Him is thus by contiguity, not continuity. So - as far as I understand this anyway - the Holy Spirit concept is a way of thinking about how God teaches us, comforts us, etc. without taking us over - i.e. maintaining contiguity.

Kurt

"It's interesting that all other "revelations & comings" are open to new and better ones but then Swedenborg makes the claim that his is the ultimate and final and no need for any more."

Like everything else about Swedenborg, this again is a matter of free will and faith. If it's God talking, He certainly knows when He gives His final revelation. If it's Swedenborg talking, hey, none of what he says is more than just another human commentator, and crazier than most since he says he talked to spirits!

On the other hand, at a common sense kind of level, if the human race grows up like the individual, then the time comes when that growing up, rationally speaking, is done. You never get older than adult (though you do try to get spiritually better as you go along!). So in this case, once you have the whole "grown up" revelation picture - or as much as you can handle in one lifetime, anyway - then there is no point to further revelation. (There is further of what Swedenborg calls illustration.)

"But there is a contradiction with in your own religion that refutes what you are saying. If as you claim that the "writings" are the final and complete revelation of God, and that everyting is now made clear, "makes sense" then why are there at least 3 different beliefs and views on his doctrine within your religion?"

Well, why are there hundreds of Christian (or Islamic, or Buddhist or....) sects, denominations, groups etc.? Free will again. Different people see things, especially religious teaching things, different ways. Some of them like to get together with other people with similar outlook and form a human organization. This has certainly happened in the New Church too. But it is important to realize that there is only one New Church in a spiritual sense, however many forms it may take, in individual or organizational interpretation/understanding, in this world.

"This, following your own logic, tells me that yes again "corruption" and "falsity" is creeping into your own religion"

Not falsity. Again, free will. And free will didn't creep in - it was always there, more there in the New Church in fact, according to Swedenborg, than has ever been possible in religion before because the rational is able to be involved at a higher level than has previously been possible. Personally, I would begin to worry if there weren't a diversity of opinion in the New Church! Party line is just not what it's all about!

"and following again Swedenborgs doctrine that would meen that sometime in the future there will need to be a further revelation or coming again to clear that all up? Does this not imply that?"

Not really. What there will be is a deepening understanding of the Word as the result of study by the principles and teachings the Writings provide (e.g. just the study of the correspondences in the Word is a lifetime undertaking and then some). This will grow over history in the future such that, according to Swedenborg, there will be a far more advanced understanding of the Word in the future than there is now. But, again, not with any new revelation but just from the "illustration" that comes from studying the existing revelation in the Scriptures and the Writings.

Kurt

Kurt has said that the benefit to being in the "true religion" or the New Church, is that your life on earth is better. i dont really think that God would come and "fight the hells" on our behalf if it were only to mildly improve our life on earth, and lets face it - New Church or not, this life can be difficult and even hellish. Kurt has also said that Swedenborg claimed that mans free will was being compromised - and that that is why Christ came to earth. i dont understand how this can be. if man is free in the first place how can he ever give that up? if he were to give up his free will, that would be his free choice - would it not? i think the idea of losing free will if you have it in the first place is logically inconsistent.

if what you are saying is that man turned away from God and was turning away from God or the Jewish faith (before Christ's first coming) in such numbers as had never been seen before, i might be willing to accept (not necessarily agree with) that idea. but on a Swedenborgian scheme, this idea would be ok because man would be free to chose any religion, and whatever religion he chose would be fine anyway.

i see no purpose to God sending a new revelation - either to liberate man's free will (which apparently, by his own free will man had rendered) or to save those turning to false religions (because according to Swedenborg, there are no false religions).

what i do see as a great purpose for God sending His only Son to the world is that man had turned away from God (when Adam sinned), and God's plan to turn the hearts of men back to Himself was realized through Christ's death on the cross. man has a limited will - bound by his sinful nature, and Christ did, in fact, come to liberate man from his sinful nature and to give him power over sin - something that man hasn't had since Adam and Eve were perfectly created (aside from God's grace to Old Testament saints). man had turned from the one true God that can save him and God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. the pagan religions that the Israelites had turned to were not true religions, and would lead to damnation, not salvation. the same is true today. only being a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ leads to salvation.

one final question - if Swedenborg believes that all religions really worship the true Christian God, then in what sense does man have free will to worship the God that he desires? what if a person doesnt want to worship the God of Heaven? - what if they want to worship a false god? according to Swedenborg, this is not possible. so this is another place where Swedenborg's beliefs are logically inconsistent.

"if Swedenborg believes that all religions
really worship the true Christian God,..."

Swedenborg does not in fact teach this. What he says is that all religions (although given some of what pass itself off as religion these days, maybe it should now be some, not all, religions!) contain pieces of the truth, such as believing that there is a God, some kind of self-discipline, and so on.

The following excerpt is taken from Lee’s 1st post under the “Thoughts on Your Web-site” thread. I am bringing this excerpt out to point out two things – 1. That I didn’t just make up the idea that Swedenborg thought that people who worship a god, worship THE God. 2. To point out that there seems to be a contradiction here and I don’t know how to resolve it. You seem to be saying that Swedenborg never taught this idea, but this seems to be very much what Lee has put forth in the following statement. This paragraph was in response to the accusation that Swedenborg taught that all religions lead to God and heaven.

---“Swedenborg did say that people of all religions can be saved if they believe in God and live a good life according to their religion. However, since he believed that Jesus Christ is the Lord God of the universe, he believed that those who believe in God _are_ believing in Jesus, even if they do not call God by that name, since there is no other
supreme God to believe in.”

Maybe you or Lee could shed some light on how this difference is reconciled.

"I am bringing this excerpt out to point out two things – 1. That I didn’t just make up the idea that Swedenborg thought that people who worship a god, worship THE God. 2. To point out that there seems to be a contradiction here and I don’t know how to resolve it."

One essential thing you learn reading Swedenborg is the danger of judging by appearances in this world. The angels can instantly see a person's true spiritual state, but we assuredly can't! So we have to step very carefully as far as jumping to conclusions about a person's religious state, and of course can never ultimately know it since, again, unlike the angels, we can't see a person's internals. To understand what a person truly believes, we would have to see that belief in a person's whole psychological context. A "primitive" tribe in the jungle somewhere, for instance, who cannot articulate complex Western Christian type theology may in fact have a profounder sense of the awe and power of God than that slick Western Christian! Yes, the tribal members' concept may incorporate falsities too, such as about sacrifice, etc., but the heart of it may, internally speaking, be more in tune with humility before God's majesty than that of someone who can quote Bible verses at you.

Recall also that Swedenborg says you have to take the combination of experience in this world and in the introductory "world of spirits" where you first go after death all as one package in understanding a person's final spiritual state. In that world, if you have the love that is going to take you to heaven, you will receive instruction in true Christianity (and will welcome it, since you then can see much more clearly, spiritually speaking). So you can't jump to any conclusions solely on the basis of what a person may have had a chance to know about or believe in this world. There are a lot of complicating social and psychological and spiritual realities in everyone's life and, again, we can't see a person's internal state to begin with. Unless you see the full picture at the deepest level in this world and add to it the refinements that will be added in the world of spirits prior to going to heaven or hell, you can't draw any final conclusions. Swedenborg talked to some historically famous people from this world, for instance, and reported some in heaven who you might, from the historical record, thought would go to hell (and vice versa). And I think he made those reports just to make the point that you can't judge reliably by externals.

In sum, what you have here is one more demonstration that the revelation received through Swedenborg is a religion for grown-ups, i.e. a full explanation of the spiritual complexities of creation. As in any area of study, more advanced knowledge brings with it the price of taking questions that, at the introductory level, had simple answers and replacing them with more complicated – sometimes frustratingly so – answers. And this certainly is the case in the Writings’ teachings about the complexities of judging a person’s religious internals.