Well, I'm now Allowing BB-Idaho to Inspire me to do a Post Based on the Last Link that he Left me and Here is the Link. It is about the Theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, which BB Claims is Quite a "Different Kind of Christianity". So Far, it Looks Like this is going to be the First in a Series of about Three Posts.
What has Frustrated me in the Past about Links that Relate to Religious History is that they Continually Give Credit to People who Hold so Called "New Ideas" that in Reality are not at all New. This was how I felt about the Previous Link that BB Gave me, in which Saint Augustine was given Credit for the Original Sin Idea, rather then the Original Biblical Writer, Paul. This Idea did not Originate with Saint Augustine, but with Paul and this Belief was Held by those in the Early church, when the Original Apostles that Knew Christ Personally were Still alive, Long before Saint Augustine was Born in 354 AD.
When I was Reading the Linked Article in this Post about Swedenborg, my First impression was that he too had been Given Credit for Some Things that may not have Really been all that New. At First, I Thought that the Ideas of Swedenborg were Actually Quite Similar to those of Christianity and In Fact, Most of them are. He may have a Unique Way of Explaining Things and he may have his Own Unique Emphasis on Certain Ideas, yet the Part of his Ideas that are not in Conflict with the Church are also not New. As I Read the Article a Second Time, I Realized that it is what he has Decided not to Accept that has Caused the Conflict between him and the church. The Conflict is not in what he has Included, but in what he has Excluded, such as the Christian Idea about the Trinity and about Salvation.
Aside from the Trinity and the Basic Gospel Message Conflicts, that which is Really Good in this Article is Good because it was already Supported by Scripture, was very Possibly already a Christian Idea and had been for Centuries. To say that all of these ideas are New, that the Modern Day Church has Rejected Every Part of his Beliefs and that Aside from the Trinity Idea and his view of the Basic Gospel Message, all of his Ideas are Unique from Present Day, or Even Traditional Christianity, is Misleading and gives Swedenborg Far more Credit then he Deserves.
You see, not all Christians are Shallow. There are some that are Thinkers and to Assume Otherwise is to Miss a Big Chunk of what Christianity has to Offer.
A lot of Historical Writings can not be Trusted because they Misrepresent the Ideas of "Modern or Contemporary Christianity", Claiming that these Wonderful "New Ideas" of the People who these Articles are Honoring were not and are not "Accepted by the Traditional or the Current Christian Church". They Confuse what is New and Controversial and what is not.
This Reminds me of a Verse in Ecclesiastes...
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV)
The Trinity, though, is an Issue of Controversy, so much so that Groups that Reject it, such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, are often Referred to by the Mainstream Church as Cults. There are also Other Reasons for this, yet I'm not Going to Get into that Right now. In Fact, I don't even want to Get into a Lengthy Discussion of all of the Bible Verses that Support the Deity of Christ and therefore the Trinity Right Now, Except to say that Jesus Claimed to be God Often enough that He was Accused of Blasphemy and this was the Reason He was Crucified.
This Article Confused me a Little because on the One Hand, it States that Swedenborg Rejected the Idea of the Trinity, yet on the Other Hand, it Explains Swedenborg's Belief that "God Came Down to Earth as Jesus.", that Jesus was "Fully Divine" and that "God brings Healing Love to us in our Own form." To me, this is an Unexplained Contradiction and it Makes me Wonder if Swedenborg was just Frustrated with the Way that the Trinity was Explained Specifically by the Lutheran Church that he was a Part of.
There have always been Different Theologies and Different Ways of Interpreting Things and this Includes Various Ways of Understanding the Trinity, Godhead. The idea that Christ is, In Fact, God, though, is Key to Christian Theology. The Way I Understand the Trinity is that there are Three Aspects to God, just as there are Three Aspects to every Person, that is the Mind (the Connection to the Physical Body), Soul and Spirit.
Sigmund Freud Divided the Person into the Trinity of the Ego, Super Ego and Id. This is Similar to the Soul (the Will or Ego), the Conscience (the Super Ego, the Spirit or the Part of us that can be Connected to God if we are Willing) and the Id or Flesh (the Sin Nature, which is also a Part of our Temporal, Corruptible, Mortal Body). The Descriptions of Freud of the Three Parts of the Trinity within the Person may be Different then the Descriptions of the Three Parts of the Person, as Described within the Bible, yet the Fact that they both Described a Trichotomy Indicates that there is a Trinity Reality within the Person that has Inspired Freud's Thoughts. Because of this Trinity within us, it is not Really so Hard to Imagine People Talking to themselves, nor to Imagine Jesus Talking to the Father. The Difference is that all Three of the Parts of the Human Person are Trapped Inside of the Human Body. The Trinity that Makes up the Godhead, though, is not so Restricted because God is Huge and has the Ability to be Everywhere at Once.
Since the Trinity is Hard to Understand, it is not Surprising that there are some who have Rejected it, rather than Trying to Find an Explanation that they can Wrap their Head Around. In my Opinion, though, this is Intellectually Lazy, as well as Arrogant. It is Lazy because, though Difficult, the Trinity Idea is not Impossible to Understand and it is Arrogant, because Assuming that we Ought to be able to Understand Everything about something as Massively Huge and Powerful as God is, well, just Plain Foolish.
The Next Subject in Question is God's Anger or Wrath, an Idea that Swedenborg Rejected.
When I First Read this Article, I was doing so, Giving Swedenborg the Benefit of a Doubt, and Focusing on Similarities with Christianity, rather then Differences. Because of this, I Over Looked, at First, the Fact that he had Basically Rejected the Basic Gospel Message that Christians Teach is the Key to Salvation. After Reading the Article a Second Time, I Realized that he does not Accept the Idea of Being Born Again, as is Described within the Christian Church. The Reason for the Rejection of this Idea, though, Appears to be his Aversion to the Idea of God's Wrath.
In Order to Reject the Idea of God's Anger or Wrath, One has to Deal with the Definitions of the Biblical Words that are Translated as Anger and Wrath. I don't have Time for such a Study at the Moment, yet for the Most Part, God's Wrath is not what is Stressed in Christian Churches.
My Understanding of the Basic Gospel Message is more Based on God's Holiness, then on His Wrath. Since God is Holy and Pure, He is not Able to Tolerate Impurity and that is why Sin Blocks our Fellowship with Him. Generally, the Way this is Explained is with a Picture of two Cliffs on Either Side of a Canyon. Since God is Holy and Man is not, there is a Great Canyon that Divides us from His Presence.
The Consequence of Our Sinfulness is Death, but when Christ Died on the Cross, His Blood was Able to Cleanse us and Justify us and this is why in the Picture of the two Cliffs and the Canyon, the Cross is Pictured as the Bridge that Allows us to Cross the Great Canyon that Divides us in our Sinfulness from God in His Holiness.
The Bible says, though, that...
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)
and
"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44, KJV)
And this is Why there are some who will Never Understand this Message.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Knee surgery! I should have some time to look around and loved this post.
You are right about nothing new under the Sun. Deism and Theism were alive and well in the time of Christ as was the old Greek concept that life made itself, the start of Evolution many centuries beforehand.
Perhaps the way Swedenborg went wrong was failing to understand the differences between his understanding and intellectual acknowledgment and his Faith in which his heart received the Truth and then God received him (I hope that happened anyway) and Swedenborg became born again despite his rejection of the process itself? It would be possible.
Thanks, Radar, for your Comment. Swedenborg is Interesting because he Contradicts himself. On the One Hand, he Rejects the Trinity Idea and yet on the Other, he says that Christ is "Fully God". It is also Said that he Rejects the Saved by Faith Idea and yet his Focus on the Intellect and on Emotions is, in Reality, a Focus on the Heart, rather then on Works.
It is Really hard to Understand what a Person actually Believes when there are Contradictions.
Thanks again for your Comment.
Radar,
Of course I'm Right about there being Nothing New Under the Sun. I was Quoting the Bible.
I'm Going to eventually be Posting more about the Born Again Theme, Still in Response to the Swedenborg Article.
A Friend of Mine Read this Post and Responded by Email Defending the Opposition to the Trinity. I've decided to Put it here because this is the Post that has Mentioned the Trinity.
Here is the First Thing that I'd Like to Quote from the said Email.
"I was thinking of commenting on your latest post...BUT, upon googling 'development of the concept of the trinity' I found 58,600,000 articles on the subject!? With that many experts, the subject seems well covered."
I Chuckled when I Read this, mostly because I Rather Doubt that all of these Articles are Written by Experts. Here's another Quote from the Email.
"We can accept there may be many ways to get from Paul’s 2 Cor: 13:14 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.' to:….."
This was Followed by a Trinity Diagram that Explains why the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, but all Three are God and here is my Response to that...
The Ego is not the Id, the Id is not the Super Ego, the Super Ego is not the Ego, yet the Person is all Three. What is so Complicated about that? I don't think it's complicated. People just like to Make it so.
Also, it just so Happens that the First Mention of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is in Matthew, Not one of Paul’s Letters.
"19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20, KJV)
This First Mention of the Subject was made by Jesus, not Paul. Though the Word Trinity is Never actually Used in the Bible, all Three of the Members are Mentioned Together here by Jesus, Himself.
Freud\'s \'trinity\' was 'nothing new under the sun.
Apparently, for it seems to be
falling by the wayside:
"Freud's psychological theories are hotly disputed today and many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan. Although Freud was long regarded as a genius, psychiatry and psychology have long since been recast as scientific disciplines, and psychiatric disorders are generally considered diseases of the brain whose etiology is principally genetic. Freud's lessening influence in psychiatry is thus largely due to the repudiation of his theories and the adoption of many of the basic scientific principles of Freud's principal opponent in the field of psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In his book "The Freudian Fraud", research psychiatrist E. Fuller-Torrey provides an account of the political and social forces which combined to raise Freud to the status of a divinity to those who needed a theoretical foundation for their political and social views. Many of the diseases which used to be treated with Freudian and related forms of therapy (such as schizophrenia) have been unequivocally demonstrated to be impervious to such treatments."
..naturally, I know little of the
fellow's theories...just kind of
interesting.
BB,
Well, yeh. Freud's Psychology is Old and Out Dated and has not been Proven Effective. That was True a long time ago. It just so Happens that even Humanistic Psychology has not been Proven entirely Effective either.
The Only Approach that has Shown some Promise is the Cognitive Approach. It's been called Cognitive Therapy or Misconception Therapy and is based on Misconceptions such as "I'm no Good.", "I'll Never Amount to anything.", "Nothing Good Ever Happens to me.", "No One will ever Love me.", etc. etc.
Humanist Psychology doesn't Work because just Listening is not Enough. The Misconceptions of the Person Need to be Corrected and it just so Happens that a lot of Christian Psychologists use this Approach.
Thank You, BB, for showing us a Perfect Example of how Secular Approaches to both Psychology and Philosophy do not Work. I Never said that Freud is Correct in his Thinking. Only that he Observed a Trinity in the Person.
RE: "Thank You, BB, for showing us a Perfect Example of how Secular Approaches to both Psychology and Philosophy do not Work."
Your Welcome. I agree bible verses
might cure some folk. I would suggest that modern medications
that treat brain chemistry through
pharmacological processes may help others...
Hi BB,
I agree with everything that you just said and I want to also Thank You for Inspiring me to Read and Review some of what I studied earlier in my life.
I was actually reading again an Old Text Book about the History of Philosophy and Psychology, starting with a Chapter on William James, because that is where the Index of Names took me when I Looked Up Swedenborg. Apparently, James was Influenced by Swedenborg's Work.
Interestingly, the Name of the Chapter is "James: The Beginnings of Psychology in the United States" and the Funny Thing is that even though this Book and this Chapter is filled with the Underlining and even Notes in the Margins that I had done when I First Read it, I Remember so Little of it that it is Like I am Reading it for the Very First Time.
Anyway, back to the Subject of the Trinity. I was Trying to do a Post in which I Compared the Trinity of the Person, According to Freud, to the Trinity of the Person, as Described in the Bible, and the Ideas just don't Match too well and this is especially True when we attempt to Compare this to the Trinity Godhead.
Freud was Controversial from the Start. Both of his Two Main Students ended up eventually Taking Off on their Own Thoughts and Philosophies. Carl Jung is Probably the Most interesting of these Students, for he disagreed with Freud's Emphasis on the Human Motivations being mostly Driven by the Sex Drive and said that Freud's description of the Unconscious Id was "Unnecessarily Negative".
This is also Probably the One that Satyavati is going to find Interesting because he came up with the Idea of the Collective Unconscious, which is made up of Accumulative Knowledge. Jung said that this Collective Unconscious is Inherited and is Collective, Universal and Identical in all Individuals. Some who Believe in Reincarnation, though, have Described it as an Accumulation of the Knowledge that is Gathered throughout Many Life Times.
I didn't Know that I was going to be discussing Psychology on this Thread.
Back to the Trinity: It is Difficult to Compare the Psychological Trinity to the Trinity of the Godhead because for one thing, how can any Part of God be Compared with something that is Evil, just as Freud's Id and the Bible's Description of "the Flesh", or for that Matter, how can God be Compared to any Part of Man that is Unconscious? Perhaps it has something to do with the Old Sinful Man and the Regenerated and Sanctified Man. I guess it's back to the Drawing Board.
Most fascinating: Never had a college course in psych myself.
So, Jung's 'collective unconcious'
reminded me of Sagan's triune brain
concept eg. R-complex, limbic
system and neocortex. He posits
that the limbic (or reptillian)
part of the brain is the most
ancient (shared by most animals)
and that somehow we humans have
a 'collective unconcious' that dates back to primitive times and
thus we have nightmares of 'predators' and an inate fear
of snakes and the like. Even though
Sagan probably isn't to your liking, being a proponent on
evolution and a scientific humanist, I think you might be
interested in the link (I have the book and read it twice)...because
this 'triune' thing keeps popping
up in the subject of brains and minds..and here again it does from
another different POV. You may get
me hooked on psych yet! BTW, Sagan
had another book 'Broca's Brain' which delved into the physiology
of the brain and its psychological
manifestations....
Thank you for this post. I honor your openness and thoughtfull investigation. Let me introduce myself by saying I am a student of Swedenborg, but first and foremost a student of Christ.
I stumbled upon your blog, and I would like to share a few perspectives that I think might be relevant to your wrestling with understanding Swedenborg and even more importantly, your understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity. My apologies for the length [I am breaking this post into two], but I do not have time to make it shorter.
Let me start by making a little room around new ideas. It is so easy to say that there is nothing new under the sun, but I think this is often a misapplication of this quote. To take this statement too strictly, means that we must dismiss Jesus Christ as a charlatan and heretic. Since Eccelesiates was written long before Christ, we can take this statement strictly speaking, which means that the coming and sacrifice of Jesus is not anything new and all His claims false, or we can take it more poetically meaning that we cannot of our selves acheive anything new. I prefer the latter meaning because God can (and has) come and changed the game. Jesus Christ is a reality that was not available when Ecclesiates was written.
To further illustrate my point, the first chapter concludes "I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this is also grasping for the wind. For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." This chapter is more a lament on the futility of our ability to accomplish anything without God. No matter how hard to try to figure life out, we just end up with the same old same old. This is reflected by the fact that the book ends with the admonition to turn our hearts and minds to God. I really don't think it does God's Word justice to use this quote in Ecclesiates to take any discussion of ideas and find how theses ideas are the same that have been. Faith develops, understanding develops, and to halt that development is not God's will. The search for truth and the dismissal of falstity needs to take place on it's own ground according to scripture and reason.
I have spent time contextualising the Ecclesiates quote because I think Swedenborg's take on the Trinity is new. Most people who study Swedenborg a little (but not enough in my opinion) will acuse him of Sebelianism. Now the heresy of Sebelianism, which is the idea that the unchanging God appears in different forms, is that the idea cannot escape implying that Divine suffered on the cross or the complete destruction of the significance of the sacrifice. The Sebelian argument that God appears in different forms takes two different forms. That Jesus Christ was the Divine descended into the world. In the end, it means that the Divine experienced physical suffering on the cross. Suffering is not a divine quality and ultimately remakes God in our image and takes away from the complete supremacy of the Divine.
The other take on Sebelianism is that the Divine descended upon Jesus at His Baptism and this became a Son of Christ. This solves the Divine suffering problem because the Divine withdrew before Christ suffered. But then what is the point of his suffering? There is no meaning or salvation in the cross. [To be continued]
[Part 2]
Swedenborg's take on the Trinity does not make either of these mistakes. I noticed in the article that you sight, the author says that "Swedenborg also rejects the doctrine of the Trinity." I would disagree with this statment. He does reject a one understanding of the Trinity, the Trinity of persons. But he does submit to a Trinity, he presents a Trinity of person. This is in fact what you presented in your description of the Trinity--the idea of a soul, body, and action. This idea of the Trinity is the idea that Swedenborg holds. (See here. [This is in a section of the book True Christian Religion (163-184) which explains his views on the Trinity.]) This definition of the Trinity is not the historical Christian understanding of the Trinity, nor is it Sebelianism.
Of course to understand if this doctrine is Sebelianism, it must pass through the test of the crucificiton. One key piece of Swedenborg's understanding of the Trinity is process. This is a new ingredient in the understanding the Divine Human. Through process the idea of the Trinity is different than what has been presented before. According to Nicean understanding of the Trinity, the Son born from eternity decended, assumed a human, and returned to the divine having taken on all sin. In Swedenborg's understanding, the Divine who is Jehovah descended into a human through a virgin birth. This huuman he took on was corrupted like any other, for the reason that through overcoming our faults He might defeat all of hell. The process of development was the process of the human learning to submit itself to the Divine soul, and through that becoming completely Divine itself. In order that this process might take place, the human went through alternating states of being emptied of the Divine and united with the Divine. Those times of emptiness parrallel our own states of temptation and those times of uniting parrallel our own states of santification. Through adding process, Jesus Christ became fully Divine,we have a Divine Human that has meaning, and we avoid the suffering of the Divine. To find Swedenborg's own description of this process see here and the following two passages.
Your brother in Christ.
I'll have to Put off the Reading of that Link, BB, or for that Matter the Links of Derrick as well. Since your Link, BB, Relates to Evolution, I'm Naturally going to View it with Skepticism, though, I will say this. As I was Reading about the Soul and the Spirit, at least one of the Definitions that I ran Across Implied that Animals have Souls, but only People have Spirits.
Another Thing to Note is the Very Presence of the Human Trichotomy or Trinity. So you see, it is not just Freud who is seeing the Human in Three Parts.
Wow Derrick,
You are so Welcome here, even with Longer Comments. I just want to Warn you that I am Slower at Responding to that which is Longer. Only the Patient can Survive on my Blog. My Primary Purpose for Comment Moderation is to Keep the Conversation Moving a little more Slowly. Thank You for your Comments. I will Read them Both more Carefully Later.
For now I just want to say that the Author of the Link that BB had Originally Left may not have Fully Understood Swedenborg. In Fact, that may be the Whole Problem with his Conflicts with the Church. Sometime Intelligent People just Talk Over the Heads of the Common Christian.
Though I do not Feel that Christianity is Incompatible with the Intellect, sometimes the Intellectual has Trouble Interacting with some Christians, because there is a rather Large Group of them that would prefer to just Accept things on Faith and not have to Think so Hard about everything. Intellectuals are not actually Encouraged much in the Church. Instead they are Told that Debate is a Futile Activity and that Faith is what Matters, rather then Understanding.
I'll be Back with more Later, but Unfortunately, for now, I've got to Run.
Ok. Here is the Start of a Three Part Comment to a Bunch of the Above Comments.
Here I am Rereading again and in the Very First Comment, Radar talks about his Knee Surgery and it makes me think about my Dental Problems. It looks like the Dentist wants to Send me to a Gum Specialist. I hope that I do not Need Gum Surgery, though, because we do not have Very Good Dental Insurance.
Here’s a Thought for all of you…
When I say there is Nothing New Under the Sun, what I'm Mainly Thinking about is how we, as Christians, are always hoping for a "Revival". A "Revival", though, is not the Introduction of the New, but the Reintroduction and Renewal of something Old that has been Lost.
This is shown, not Only in Real Life, but also even in the Definition, for "Revival" not Only means "Awakening", but also "Renewal and Restoration", and "Revive" Means "Renew, Refresh, Bring Back to Life, Recall, Reawaken and Produce again".
True Christians do not Crave what's New, but instead what has always Been, but Keeps Falling into Decay and Eroding Away. I'm not saying that all Progress is bad, yet what is lasting and Eternal and what is Truly Important in Life is the Same as it always has been, for God Truly is the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever.
Radar,
"Perhaps the way Swedenborg went wrong was failing to understand the differences between his understanding and intellectual acknowledgment and his Faith in which his heart received the Truth and then God received him."
When I First Read in the Article that Swedenborg rejected the Idea of Justification by Faith Alone, I was Thinking about Faith in Contrast to Works, which is the most Common of the Controversies, yet it seems that Swedenborg does not Contrast Faith to Works, but instead Faith to Understanding. In Other Words, he has a hard time Accepting and having Faith in that which he does not Understand. This is Actually a Separate Issue from the Faith vs. Works Debate.
What Swedenborg didn't Realize is that Faith is Limited by the Intellect when Understanding is a Requirement or Prerequisite to Faith.
Perhaps the Reason why Swedenborg appears to be Contradicting himself, though, is because he has been so Often Misunderstood. Even I am going to have to take another look at him before I'm going to more fully understand him.
BB-Idaho,
"I agree Bible verses might cure some folk."
I haven't Actually said that on this Comment Thread, yet it is not Incorrect. In Truth, a Christian Psychologist will Include with all the Original "Misconception" Ideas, the Conviction that all that Goes Against Scripture is a Misconception that Needs Correcting. As Long as the Client is aware that the Counseling will be done from a Christian Point of View, this Type of Counseling is totally Valid and is even Effective.
And Yes, Drug Therapy has it's Place as well.
I'm Tired, so I'm Going to Put Off the Rest of this, which is basically a Response to Derrick.
I don't Know how Long it is going to be before I do a New Post Again, for it Looks like we have Company coming over the Weekend, so it is Time to Clean House again.
Hi Derrick,
Here are the Last two Parts of my above Comment.
"We can take this statement strictly speaking, which means that the coming and sacrifice of Jesus is not anything new and all His claims false, or we can take it more poetically, meaning that we cannot of our selves achieve anything new."
First of all, the Assumption that that which is not New is False is Grossly Incorrect.
And Secondly, the Sacrifice of Jesus may be a New Event, but it is not a New Idea, for Blood has always been a Requirement for Forgiveness of Sins. In the Old Testament, it was the Blood of Lambs, Goats and Bulls. Christ, though, is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29b, KJV)
After His Death, Jesus actually Descended into Hell and Released a Bunch of Captives that were there at the Time, so it is not True that the Deliverance that Jesus Offered was only for those who Lived Later in History.
Not Only that, but the Event was also Prophesied about in the Old Testament. Probably the Most Famous of these Prophecies was in Isaiah 53. You see, Prophecies not Only Provide Evidence for the Existence of God and the Validity of Scripture, they are also an Indication that that which Happens Later is not Actually a New Idea, but simply the Fulfillment of an Old One that God had Planned from the Beginning.
Yes, it is True that "We cannot of ourselves achieve anything new." and that there is Futility in "our ability to accomplish anything without God", yet this does not Mean that there is anything Outside of ourselves that is New. Even that which is New to us is not New to God. God is the Same, Yesterday, Today and Forever, yet to Hang On to that which is Constant and True and Avoid the Natural Erosion and Decaying that Happen in Life to all Things, Including Thoughts and Ideas, we must "Turn our Hearts and Minds to God", for He is the Only One who will Keep us on Track.
"Faith develops, understanding develops, and to halt that development is not God's will."
Yes, Faith Develops, but this is Mostly True within the Heart and Mind of in each Individual. It's like a Vineyard. Each Plant is New, each Branch as New, each Flower and Grape is New, yet the Land that the Vineyard Grows on is Ancient and even the Water that Helps it to Grow is Timeless and is Simply Caught Up in a Endless Cycle of Evaporation and Rain.
She Smiles as she recognizes another Trinity of Water, Steam and Ice.
The Scripture is also Timeless and is not Meant to be Changed.
In the Next Post Up, BB Posted the Question of "whether the Swedenborgian view of the trinity had its roots in Sabellius, and later Servetus?"
I Suppose that that is what you Mean, Derrick by "Sebelianism". I might have to Look that Up, so that I Know more Fully what you are Talking bout. For now, I just want to Ask the Question, How does the Idea that the "Divine suffered on the cross" Imply "the complete destruction of the significance of the sacrifice"?
"Suffering is not a divine quality and ultimately remakes God in our image and takes away from the complete supremacy of the Divine."
Making God in "Our Own Image" is not Necessary because we are Already Made in His Image. I've Never heard the Idea, though, that "Suffering is not a divine quality". Where does that Idea come from? Certainly not from Christianity. Ephesian 4:30 says, "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (KJV) If God does not Suffer, then how can He be Grieved?
Hello again Derrick,
Perhaps it is Time now for me to Apologize to you for the Length of my Comments. Since I have Written 4 in a Row now, I am sort of Hoping that someone will Comment, so that I do not appear to be Talking to myself.
"The other take on Sebelianism is that the Divine descended upon Jesus at His Baptism and thus became a Son of God."
This does not Explain the Virgin Birth, nor does it Explain the Words "Only Begotten" in John 3:16, "16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJV).
"But then what is the point of his suffering?"
So that He can Better Understand His Creation and all that we go through in our Emotional State in this Imperfect World.
"He does reject one understanding of the Trinity, the Trinity of persons. But He does submit to a Trinity. He presents a Trinity of a person."
You will Notice in my Above Post that I was Wondering if this was True when I Wrote this Paragraph...
"This Article Confused me a Little because, on the One Hand, it States that Swedenborg Rejected the Idea of the Trinity, yet on the Other Hand, it Explains Swedenborg's Belief that 'God Came Down to Earth as Jesus.', that Jesus was 'Fully Divine' and that 'God brings Healing Love to us in our Own form.' To me, this is an Unexplained Contradiction and it Makes me Wonder if Swedenborg was just Frustrated with the Way that the Trinity was Explained Specifically by the Lutheran Church that he was a Part of."
Your Words:
"In Swedenborg's understanding, the Divine, who is Jehovah, descended into a human through a virgin birth."
You see, if Swedenborg Believes that Jesus is Jehovah, Himself, then he has not Rejected the Idea of the Trinity and the Article that I Left a Link to has made an Incorrect Statement.
A Process, though, Implies Imperfection and the Divine is Perfect. You also make it Sound as if you are Talking about Indwelling or the Possession of the Body of a Separate Human Soul.
"This human He took on was corrupted like any other."
Shouldn't this actually read "This Human Body He took on was corrupted like any other."
Anyway, Derrick, that was my more Complete Response to your Comments. Hopefully, you are still around.
Oh, just One Last Remark. I did Read your Links and was a little Confused by the Way Swedenborg Writes. His Ideas on the Trinity are Actually no Less Confusing then any of the other Explanations that I've Read. Oh well.
Re: Oral and periodontal sugery-
there is a new method using lasers
which is supposed to be less painful and quicker recovery...and some ordinary health insurance policies cover at least part of the cost.
RE: The 'trinity' of water. Not
sure what Swedenborg would say, but
IMO, the three phases and their
physical properties (ice, liquid and steam)are determined by the
energy content of the system; for
example in ice, the Van der Waals
forces become so significant that
the H2O molecules move so slowly
that crystals form. As energy is
added to the system, the H2O molecules exhibit more movement,
although h-bonding dimers exist
giving the property of liquid and
over 212 deg, even those are overcome and the H2O molecules
become more widely and randomly
spaced giving rise to the properies of a gas. Sabellius
might say that a single molecule
can exist in three manifestations.
..maybe, just a guess.
RE: Theological views of the doctrine of the Trinity should be so simple as water. Such a minor
part of the concept as the filioque
controversy suggest as such:
Saint Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306 – 373) declared: "The Father is the Begetter, the Son the Begotten from the bosom of the Father, the Holy Spirit He that proceedeth from the Father and the Son...
Saint Augustine (354 – 430) wrote: "God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds....
Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 - 444) declared: "The Spirit proceeds (πρόεισι) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance (οὐσίας), proceeding (προϊόν) substantially in it and from it."[25][26] He made similar statements also in other passages.[27] The ninth of his anathemas against Nestorius states that "it was by his own proper Spirit through whom (Jesus) worked the divine wonders"....
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also states that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin Filioque tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...
...and then..
..the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is found in John 15:26- no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament.
Meanwhile Sabellius considered that
all persons of the Trinity originate in the essence of God.
..small wonder there is confusion
on the subject. (Apologies for
such a long comment)
Hi BB,
You Know, I don't want to Talk too Long about the Dental Thing except to say that at this Point I am more Concerned about our Finances than about whether or not there is Pain. Our Insurance Coverage is not as Good as I'd like it to be. On so many things, they only cover about 50%.
I'm not sure how Chemistry would Compare to the Trinity of the Godhead. I don't Think that it is usually Explained that way, only that a Single Substance can Take more then One Form. Probably no Comparison is going to be Perfect.
You see, Fully and Completely Understanding the Trinity doesn't matter that much to me. If Swedenborg says that Jesus is "Fully Divine" and Fully God, then I am Satisfied and do not Need to Understand the Details and I Think that the Author of the Link that you gave me and that I've Posted was in Error when he said that Swedenborg has Rejected the Idea of the Trinity.
And in Actuality that Plays right into the Question that is Written in the Title of this Post, "Can We Trust Religious History?" I'm Inclined to Think not.
Your Comments are Never too long, BB. You just have a Tendency at Times to Leave more Links than I can Read and Respond to.
Interesting conclusion.."Can We Trust Religious History?" I'm Inclined to Think not." Keeping in
mind "Churchill\'s admonition Do you trust ANY
history? Or just the parts you like? Or the religious history
told in the bible? Thank you for
the wise "You see, Fully and Completely Understanding the Trinity doesn't matter that much to me"...we should understand that
Christianity is much more than
intricately constructed dogma..and
I think you have well summed elsewhere the meaning and values of what it means to be a Christian.
Hi BB,
Well, Nothing in the Bible has been Disproven and this Claim can not be Made of any Other History source.
School Text Books are Generally Pretty Accurate in what they Include in relation to History, yet they have left a lot out and in the Removal of a lot of Religious Content, they have Distorted the Religious Part of our Heritage here in America. Contrary to what many would like us to Believe, most of the Founding Fathers were, In Fact, Christians and this does indeed have a Great deal to do with the Greatness of our Country.
As to Churchill's Quote, if "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." and yet Key Parts of History are Removed, such as our Christian Heritage, then how are we to Learn from the Part of Our History that Suggests that we have gone down hill in this Country when we have Removed all References to God, as well as Prayer, from Schools and Public Places and basically Turned Away from our Creator?
Make no Mistake about it. Key Parts of our Religious History have been Removed from the Text Books.
Thanks again for your Comments, BB, and all. I will be Pretty Busy now, cause we have Company Coming Over the Weekend.
Somewhat related is the concept of
three heavens
which apparently was derived by
Swedenborg from St. Paul..and then
copied verbatim by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons. Paul,
Swedenborg and Mormons, Oh my!
I did Take the Time to Read this Link, BB, but may have to Come Back to it Later in Order to Fully Digest it and Form an Opinion. I Never did Take the Time to Finish my Series of Posts on Swedenborg. I can most Definitely see why he was Controversial. He may not have Fully Rejected the Trinity, but his Ideas about Heaven and Hell are Controversial as well.
I'm thinking Swedenborg was an early dispensational premillenialist. But what do
scientists know of eschatology?
Our Out of Town Company will be Coming Tomorrow, so I'll have Limited Time now to Write and to Think. I'll be Back, though I have no Idea when.
RE: "Make no Mistake about it. Key Parts of our Religious History have been Removed from the Text Books." Probably-History contains
way too much for one textbook. I would recommend Kevin Phillips'
"American Theocracy" for a good
summation of religion and its effect on American politics through the years. It is rigorous, but not all that pleasant: early Mormons taking over entire counties, southern Baptists quoting scripture to defend slavery, rampant free masonry among the founders...we don't want the little
geezers learning that, now do we?
"Probably-History contains way too much for one textbook."
Yeh, but that's no Excuse for Removing all References to Religion out of History Books. History is History and the Accurate Reporting of it is not the Same as Pushing or Discouraging a Religion.
Your Focus, though, is only on the Negative Side of Religious History. It always has been and I'm not sure why.
Post a Comment