« first day (1766 days earlier)      last day (2855 days later) » 

Eagle
Eagle
10:22 AM
@LeeWoofenden Off course .He will reveal more in the future.Saying that could be the reason Paul could not tell the stuff he had seen and heard,because the others could not carry it.
Question for all: How could Peters shadow heal,is there a biblical understanding,something about shadow?Does a shadow have a spiritual meaning?
Maybe because the Body is the temple of God and because of the light that shine on the temple.The shadow cast over us is a result of the light that shine on the temple.(just thinking)Could have some spiritual meaning.Peter was now a holy temple because He had faith in Jesus(not sure)
So his shadow became holy(I dunno)
 
 
3 hours later…
Joshua
Joshua
1:39 PM
@Nathaniel Regarding Grudem and intermediate state, while I grew up in a soul sleep church, I'm not dogmatic about the state, conscious or not, or location, heaven or sheol or paradise or whatever, but I've mostly come to be concerned with how we allow or views on it to supersede our understanding of heaven.
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Ah okay – what kind of church was that? I'm not especially familiar with the prevalence of that doctrine.
 
Joshua
Joshua
That is, I think many have traded the eternal new heavens and new earth for a singlular "heaven" that is identified as the heaven where we picture God living now. For a heaven that was supposed to be temporary until the resurrection. The result is a massive neglect of the resurrection in churches today, or a complete reinterpretation at worst
@Nathaniel Well they would prefer "unconsciousness of the dead" o'er soul sleep, but it is the Advent Christian Church (ACGC advent Christian general assembly. Not 7th day adventist, though they share some origin)
In their view, we are compete beings made of material and immaterial. Adam's body was formed first, and a breath, or spirit was breathed into it, but only when the two combined was Adam a complete soul. Paul does not wish to be unclothed, but clothed in a new body, because we are meant to live in a body, we are not angels or immaterial spirits only.
Back to Grudem, I've listened to that entire audio systematic theology, some parts more them once, and he really struggles when topics of man's constitution, intermediate state, resurrection and eschatology intersect. You will often hear him stammer or pause to make sure he says, or restates, something in a way that tows the line. But the inconsistencies stick out
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Ah, interesting. All this doesn't sound that different, however, because Protestants generally agree that we are "meant" to have bodies; those who have died will just have to "wait" for a time (whatever that means for someone in heaven), until the last days, to get them
 
Joshua
Joshua
Like he criticizes trichotomists for over emphasizing the spiritual part as our real selves to the detriment of including reason and emotion, but then essentially does the exact same thing when he rolls soul and spirit into one! Still over emphasizes the immaterial.
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
But I certainly agree, Protestants at least focus much more on "going to heaven when I die" rather than looking forward to the final resurrection
 
Joshua
Joshua
1:56 PM
@Nathaniel Oh sure, they will give it lip service, but it has largely been lost to how it actually affects our thinking. Whenever someone says anything about heaven, stop and ask what they actually mean. By far they are talking about their eternal final destination. If you remind them of the resurrection they'll say "oh yeah well sure that's in there somewhere" heh Likely because they are avoiding eschatology, but still, Origen's "Idealist" heaven is what most really think of
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua To be fair, I'd be doing the same thing :). In some ways that's because he's in a tricky spot, threading a needle between the Reformed, the dispensationalists, and the Pentecostals – it'd be easy for someone with his views to get rejected by all three groups.
(rather than just the dispensationalists :))
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Nathaniel Yes, Advent Christians are indeed rejected by those. Though they are basically old school Reformed. Historical premillenialism, covenant theology, historicist approach to apocalyptic literature (papacy is antichrist, Rome is RCC even). One could say they are more reformed than today's "Reformed" theology. Historicaly speaking.
The just have a little twist to intermediate state (though Luther may agree)
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Interesting. I'll have to read up on them a bit; I was vaguely aware of the existence of non-7th day adventists, but hadn't paid much attention. Do you still associate with them?
@Joshua It'd be interesting to survey dedicate church member lay Protestants to see what they think about if and when they'll get a body in heaven. I bet it would be depressing.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Nathaniel Yes, there isn't a church where I live now, but I'm technical still a member of my old church. Still haven't technically joined our current nondenominational evangelical church because of #8 on the statement of belief :) though I'm working on that.
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Well at least it's good to know that there are still nondenom evangelical churches that have church membership (you can tell I'm getting to be a crotchety Presbyterian). What's #8?
 
Joshua
Joshua
2:09 PM
@Nathaniel I'm afraid it would be as well. If I ever write a book it will be titled "Why I'm Not Going to Heaven" or "We Weren't Made for Heaven"
@Nathaniel 8. We believe that Christ may, at any time, return to receive the saints into Heaven (which is known as the "rapture" of the Church) after which shall follow the Tribulation period of approximately seven years. Christ then will return to the earth with His saints, to rule for one-thousand years (Millennial Reign), after which the wicked will be judged and cast into the lake of fire. (1 Thes. 4:13-18; Daniel 9:27; Rev. 19:11; Matt. 24:15-21, 27)
To their credit, #9 is bodily resurrection :)
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Wow. It always shocks me when dispensationals make that a core doctrine. Not just premillenialism, but pre-trib premillenialism.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Nathaniel Its not dispensational, just premillenial
But yes, its a bit unnecessary. As I said, I'm working on it. Either I won't have to affirm that point or it gets edites before I will officially join the church I've attended nearly 8 years
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
I dunno, that's the dispensational calling card right there. Pre-trib has Darby/Chafer/Ryrie written all over it, though it probably has gotten more play thanks to Left Behind and so forth
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Nathaniel I just mean you can hold to that exact eschatology without being dispensational. Sorry, its a pet peeve of mine that it has become synonymous. Dispensationalism believes a lot more about history and salvation than just pretrib secret rapture, premil, etc. My church would differ when it comes to Israel, they would be covenant on that
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Joshua Fair enough. Normally I expect a church that includes it in their statement of faith to be thoroughly dispensational, but I haven't read John MacArthur's church's statement of faith, so I could be well off-base
 
Joshua
Joshua
2:20 PM
Dispensationalism adopted the already existing premillenial eschatology and tweaked it. But as a Historic Premillenialists...it annoys me I have to label it Historic :p
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
No doubt :). Call it "classic" instead, perhaps?
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Nathaniel No identifiers! They took my view! THEY can clarify that they aren't my position. Hahaa
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Seems fair to me :)
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Eagle Swedenborgians believe that Jesus has already revealed more. We are no longer waiting for it to happen in the future.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Good morning PhiLEEtus :D
Sorry...covergence of conversations. Couldnt resist.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
2:32 PM
@Nathaniel You can probably thank Swedenborg for that at least in part. He was one of the strongest voices for immediate resurrection after death, and his Heaven and Hell had a profound influence on Western views of angels and the afterlife. See:
8
A: What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?

Lee WoofendenIn Heaven: A History (1995: Yale University Press) the authors, Drs. Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang, state that Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) had a pivotal role in bringing about a changed view of heaven, including the idea that angels are humans who have died and gone on to heaven, rather ...

@Joshua Good morning. Working my way through that conversation.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden 2 Tim 2:17 is the reference. Sorry, bit of a low blow :) but as I said, waa sort of a "speaking of..." moment involving that discussion and your statements about Swedenborg and Christ's coming/resurrection.
 
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@LeeWoofenden You're not exactly making me like Swedenborg more ;)
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Not sure "Thank" is the term I had in mind?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Nathaniel And of course, Swedenborg agreed with Paul that "If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). He said that upon entering the spiritual world at death, everyone has a spiritual body that is virtually indistinguishable from their physical body, and that they continue to live in this tangible spiritual body to eternity.
@Joshua I've been called much worse lol.
@Joshua But I would prefer to think that Swedenborg's teachings are spreading like wildfire! :-)
His views of the afterlife have largely taken over in the popular mind. The traditional Christian churches just haven't caught up yet.
@Nathaniel Few doctrinaire traditional Christians do like Swedenborg. His theology lays the ax to the root of traditional Christian theology. And that's never popular among the old faithful.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden as far as axes go, it's a remarkably blunt one
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
2:44 PM
@bruisedreed And yet, it has revolutionized the world's thinking about the afterlife, especially, and about many other things as well.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden "the world"? really? ^^
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
The entire American Transcendentalist movement of Emerson, Thoreau, et al was heavily influenced by Swedenborg, and in turn heavily influenced American and Western thinking about the symbolic nature of reality, and humans' place in it.
@bruisedreed Yes. Most of the major Western thinkers of the 1800s and early 1900s read and were influenced by Swedenborg, although few acknowledged his influence. And their thinking had a pervasive effect on Western culture, which has since spread around the world.
@bruisedreed Kant, for example, read Swedenborg and was very interested in his philosophy and theology. He even sent an emissary to inquire about Swedenborg. And he later wrote a parody of Swedenborg Dreams of a Spirit Seer, in which he essentially said, "Since some people may think my system is like Swedenborg's, I'm going to make fun of Swedenborg so that no one will think I'm a follower of his."
And yet it is very likely that Kant derived critical aspects of his philosophy from Swedenborg. And I think you probably have some idea of how much of an influence Kant's philosophy had on Western and world culture.
It's ironic, since Kant's Dreams of a Spirit Seer made it completely unfashionable among academics to admit to reading Swedenborg. It's one of the reasons Swedenborg's name was buried for so long. But Kant himself was indelibly influenced by Swedenborg.
In psychology, Jung was heavily influenced by Swedenborg. He seems to have read Swedenborg's entire 8 volume Latin Arcana Coelestia, in which Swedenborg lays out a "correspondential" or symbolic method of interpreting the Bible. And this was a key source of Jung's theory of archetypes--which has had a huge influence on psychology.
In discipline after discipline, key thinkers who brought about whole new chapters of thought read and were influenced by Swedenborg. So yes, "the world."
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I'm still waiting for arguments for why any of this is good. I'm just seeing reasons to dismiss it as populist, liberal, worldly belief. Judaiser legalism, Gnosticism, Arianism, etc were all extremely popular among the masses in their day.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Quite simply: It's good because it is the truth.
@Joshua It is traditional Christian theology and eschatology that had become worldly and materialistic. Swedenborg began steering Christianity back toward a spiritual understanding of reality and of the afterlife.
@Joshua I view the main body of traditional Christianity as a throwback to ancient Jewish attitudes that focus on the physical body and reject the spiritual. Christianity quickly revised the priesthood that Jesus had left behind. We no longer need priests as intermediaries between humans and God because Christ has become God's own mediator. Yet the Christian Church reinstated an intermediary priesthood within a few centuries of Christ.
Protestantism largely did away with the intermediary priesthood, but at the cost of founding its doctrine on entirely non-Biblical teachings, such that it has almost completely destroyed the key teachings of Jesus Christ and of the Bible as a whole.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
3:02 PM
@LeeWoofenden You just spent 302 words defending a piece of nonsense. A large segment of the Western world does not consider the after life to be a subject worthy of any consideration whatsoever, let alone incorporate Swedenborg's views into it. As for the rest of the world, he is completely irrelevant to them - do you seriously think there is any statistical percentage among Hindus, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Chinese etc whose views of the afterlife are significantly influenced by Swedenborg?
 
Joshua
Joshua
So 300 years later, Swedenborgs teachings have remained faithful to the truth, but in less than 80 years Jesus' teachings were twisted?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed The influence on eastern religions is, of course, less, just as the influence of Christianity generally is less. But it is still there. One of the major areas is in the institution of marriage. Western ideals of marriage are invading he Eastern world, where monogamy and love-based marriage is swiftly catching the popular imagination and gradually replacing old, materialistic, polygamous views of marriage.
Swedenborg was one of the major influences lifting marriage to a spiritual level in Western thought. He wrote a book on the subject that scandalized the traditional Christianity of his day, but over time has had a profound influence on Western views of marriage, which is now, as I said, making great inroads in the East.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden "less", cute. Zero would be a lot closer to the truth.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua I wouldn't say 80 years. It took longer than that. But by the time of the Council of Nicaea in 335 AD Christianity was decisively twisting the teachings of Jesus--and it has never really recovered.
@bruisedreed In your opinion. But you are uninformed on this subject.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden But as a presumably informed person, you weren't able to support your statement - instead of doing that, you changed the topic instead.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
3:11 PM
@bruisedreed Which statement are you talking about?
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden "And yet, it [Swedenborg's axe] has revolutionized the world's thinking about the afterlife, especially,..."
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden yet Papias and Justin and others we have record of in early 2nd century all affirm a "materialistic" resurrection. Thank goodness God sent Swedenborg to explain what Jesus couldn't.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden Perhaps your disdain for literalism applies to your own speech as well? Should we take the things you say metaphorically?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Did you actually read the linked C.SE answer? Drs. Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang are not Swedenborgians. And yet in their seminal history of the concept of heaven, they place Swedenborg as the pivotal figure in the shift from traditional to modern views of heaven, angels, and the afterlife.
And since the advent of rapid international communications, Western views on almost everything--including the afterlife--have had a pervasive influence on Eastern culture.
@Joshua Papias and Justine are not Jesus. Their teaching is not Jesus' teaching. Jesus' teaching is found in the Gospels. And he speaks of the thief on the cross as being with him "this day in paradise," and of Abraham, the rich man, and Lazarus as all being in the spiritual world now, not at some future date. Jesus taught immediate resurrection, and concurrent life in the spiritual world.
@bruisedreed Don't be silly.
I've got some errands to run, so I'll have to sign off for now.
 
Joshua
Joshua
3:35 PM
@LeeWoofenden eh eh eh, Jewish Paradise was a waiting stage, not eternal spiritual world. They, except the Sadducees whom Jesus rebuked, awaited a literal resurrection. And the story of the rich man and Lazarus is at best reflective of that paradise and at least may simply be a twisting of a Talmudic story. (Jesus loved twisting these things back on the religious leaders).
@LeeWoofenden Jesus himself seems pretty clear in John 5:25-30. But I'm glad we agree Swedenborg is not Jesus.
 
 
1 hour later…
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
5:07 PM
@Joshua The Jews of the time when most of the Old Testament was written did not believe in an afterlife at all. They believed that people simply go to sleep in the grave. All of their rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad behavior were prescribed for this life, not some future life.
@Joshua By the time of Jesus, Jewish thought had been heavily influenced by Greek, Roman, and other pagan thought, and a belief in the afterlife had crept in from those non-Jewish sources. The Sadducees had a reasonable claim to represent "classical" Jewish thought in their rejection of an afterlife.
@Joshua So are you saying that Jesus deliberately used misleading stories that gave the impression that people such as Abraham, the rich man, and Lazarus are now living in the spiritual world when he very well knew they weren't? And that he was telling fibs to the thief on the cross when he told him that he would be with him in paradise today?
@Joshua By your theory, who's to say that in John 5:25-30 Jesus wasn't just using rabbinic tales about a future bodily resurrection to make his point? Considering his direct, non-rabbinic statement to the thief on the cross about immediate entrance into paradise, it seems more likely that he was talking figuratively in John 5:25-30 than that he was speaking figuratively in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
"The grave" was a common metaphor for death and destruction in OT times. "Rising from the grave" was also a metaphor for new life, as in the story of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14.
Obviously that passage is not talking about some future physical resurrection. It is talking about restoring the life of the Jewish people. And it is a small step from there to Jesus speaking of restoring spiritual life to the people using the metaphor of their rising from the grave.
@Joshua I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Swedenborg is Jesus--especially not Swedenborg himself.
 
Joshua
Joshua
5:41 PM
@LeeWoofenden Neither, I'm sure, did Papias or Justin, yet you seemed confused on the matter as if I was.
@LeeWoofenden Only if you get caught up in the form of the parable instead of learning the meaning. Which, ironically, is what you are sort of accusing me of, that I'm missing the spiritual meaning because I'm caught up in the physical. Was there really no ruler who went on a journey and left 3 servants behind in charge? No vineyard workers who killed an actual master's son? Were those lies?
@LeeWoofenden But, regardless, I'm not saying Abraham and the thief from the cross aren't someplace now. I'm saying that place isn't the final reward and they are there, awaiting the resurrection.
 
 
1 hour later…
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:54 PM
@Joshua I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You were the one who raised the issue of Swedenborg not being Jesus.
@Joshua Those stories were based on common knowledge about how human culture and relations worked in Jesus' day. So even if they didn't literally happen, they were things that could have happened as described. That's why the stories were compelling to his hearers.
When Jesus tells stories about the afterlife, he similarly speaks in terms of a particular understanding of how death and the afterlife works. So even if the events described in the story involving Abraham, the rich man, and Lazarus didn't literally happen, the story is told within a framework of understanding about individual resurrection and the spiritual world, in which people are immediately resurrected and live on in the spiritual world as themselves.
And Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross that this is what would happen to him gives non-story support to Jesus' conception and teaching of heaven and hell as places we go immediately upon death, without waiting for some future resurrection.
@Joshua I understand that you believe that. I think you are mistaken. But of course, we humans are free to believe what we wish.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
7:21 PM
@LeeWoofenden That's an oft-repeated but lacking-in-evidence notion. What do you think those Jews would have believed with regard to Enoch and Elijah? That wherever they were taken to they would grow old and die like anyone else? That those two, of all men that had ever lived, would gain a (non-after-life) heaven and never die?
Or is it more likely that they actually believed in common with Daniel that "...many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. "?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Daniel is one of the later books of the Old Testament, and shows the influence of Babylonian thought. In fact, most of the Prophets are set in post-united-Kingdom times, when foreign influences from Assyria and Babylon had started to take hold in Jewish thought.
@bruisedreed The evidence for it is the total lack of any mention of an afterlife in the narrative sections of the Old Testament. Yes, Enoch and Elijah were taken. But it says nothing at all about where they went. No parable of the rich man and Lazarus inhabiting heaven.
About the closest the narrative sections of the OT come to anything like what happens after death is the story of Saul and the medium at Endor in 1 Samuel 28. The medium sees Saul coming out of the ground (verse 13), and Samuel chastises Saul for "troubling him by bringing him up," as if from sleep or the grave (verse 15).
There simply isn't anything in the narrative sections of the OT to indicate that the ancient Israelites had any conception of an afterlife.
Further, all of the rewards and penalties promised to and visited upon the ancient Israelites were said to happen in this life. There is no promise, as in the NT, of "everlasting life" or "everlasting punishment." See:
6
A: What did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the OT?

Lee WoofendenThroughout the narrative parts of the Old Testament, there is very little mention of any afterlife. That idea arises mostly later on, in the books of the Prophets. During the bulk of Old Testament times, salvation had little or nothing to do with: Heaven or the afterlife, since there was littl...

 
bruised reed
bruised reed
7:38 PM
@LeeWoofenden I see you are once more impervious to logic on this front. I will refrain from further attempts to persuade you from this particular error - if you choose to believe nonsense, no-one can convince you against your will.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Incidentally, the Jewish canon of scripture does not include Daniel among the Prophets, but puts it instead in the Writings (nevi'im), which gives it a lesser status in their canon.
@bruisedreed There goes that almost irresistible urge to insult me. When there is no solid counter-argument, insult is a popular refuge.
Christians commonly read so much of NT thought into the OT that they are unable to read the OT within its own perspective. If I am wrong about the absence of any material about the afterlife in the narrative sections of the OT, please quote such passages to me. I would be fascinated to read them.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden Perhaps it comforts you to avoid engaging with a point that is made and instead focus on a side issue, but it is a behaviour that does not engender respect. A blunt but accurate appraisal is not an insult - it is a rebuke. I already mentioned two references in the OT narrative where we are given a slight glimpse of "the afterlife", there is an excellent reason why "the narrative" doesn't show us more in that regard: they didn't come back down again.
There is no good reason to exclude the other portions of non-narrative portions of the OT that speak to the issue - of course they actually give excellent insight into the views of the writers of the OT in this issue. cf. Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes etc.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed If you're speaking of Enoch and Elijah, in neither case is any glimpse given of the afterlife. With regard to Enoch, it says:
> Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (Genesis 5:24)
No mention of any afterlife here.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
7:53 PM
took him where?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Precisely. It doesn't say. No mention of the afterlife.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
and what do you think the Jews would have deduced from that story? nothing?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Most likely that Enoch died.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden ^^
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
As for Elijah, it says in 2 Kings 2 that God took him up to "heaven" in a whirlwind. I put "heaven" in quotes because it should really be translated "sky." That was what Elisha saw. In fact, the other prophets thought the whirlwind must have deposited him on some mountain or in some valley, so they went to look for him. Clearly this was seen as a physical event, not an event carrying Elijah to "heaven" as Christians conceive of it.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
7:58 PM
You say that later views on resurrection came from Babylon, but why should they have come during the exile or post-exile - there was an ancient Babylonian system that could have transmitted them through Abraham. The Egyptians believed in an afterlife - they could have transmitted them through Moses. Why do you think it was later? Such a belief is merely based on the idea that the Sadduccees where the traditionalists where the evidence is that the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection...
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Most of the books in the Jewish "Writings" are of later composition. And yes, they were preparatory to the further revelations about the afterlife provided in the NT. But they represented an evolution of Jewish thought out of the stark materialism of the early Hebrew and Kingdom period into later Jewish thought.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
where actually the ones better connected to the whole body of Jewish understanding
@LeeWoofenden you say stark materialism, but counter-evidence is there - you just don't accept it.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed Once again, the evidence is the lack of any solid mention of the afterlife in the earlier books of the Old Testament. If Moses was influenced by Egyptian views of the afterlife, it certainly didn't show in the books attributed to him. Daniel, on the other hand, does make clear references to a resurrection. So the evidence is right there in the books themselves. All you have to do is read them without preconceptions.
@bruisedreed Where is the evidence? Show me the passages!
Incidentally, I grew up in a Jewish town from the time I was 10 years old, and several of my Jewish friends assured me that there was no afterlife, but that the good would be rewarded in this life. So Jewish materialism is not a mere relic of the ancient past. It persists among many Jews to this day.
IOW, the split within Judaism between the Saducees and the Pharisees about the afterlife still exists today.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden Do you really think that has any bearing on the views of those who wrote the OT?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed I said "Incidentally," indicating that this was an aside.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
8:13 PM
@LeeWoofenden There are numerous miracles, angelic appearances, theophanies right through the Torah - to say that this is representative of "stark materialism" is mind-bogglingly delusional.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed The miracles were all of a physical variety. Ancient Jews believed that God could bring such things about in their physical environment. "Angels" in Hebrew are simply "messengers." And they are commonly described as "men." Their nature was not clearly spelled out. But they were able to eat physical food, suggesting that they were experienced as flesh-and-blood people, not spirits.
And of course God could speak to humans on earth. The ancient Jews did believe in God.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden Any witnessed miracle is going to impact the physical world of course, but there are many such miracles that clearly have a supernatural (ie non-materialistic) origin. You say that they believe in God, but they don't just believe in a philosophical construct of God that doesn't interact with the material universe - there are continual cross-overs from the spiritual realm to the natural realm.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
In Genesis 2 and 3, God interacts quite physically with the earth, forming Adam out of the dust of the ground, putting Adam to sleep, and shaping Eve out of one of his ribs. He is then seen walking in the garden and talking to Adam and Eve. All of this doesn't suggest that God is anything other than a physical being who exists on this physical plane just lake Adam, Eve, and the garden.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@LeeWoofenden So by the same logic, when God manifests in the burning bush that is also stark materialism as well eh?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@bruisedreed As far as the narrative is concerned, it was a physical event seen with Moses' physical eyes.
Can you point to any passage in the narrative parts of the Old Testament--or even in the entire Old Testament--that clearly identifies God as a spiritual being?
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
8:21 PM
@LeeWoofenden Alright, that's enough for me, for now. It's super late here - till next time.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Is there anything akin to Jesus' statement that "God is a spirit" (John 4:24)?
@bruisedreed Okay. Sleep well.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Both Manoah and Gideon both thought they were speaking to physical messengers, but when the angel of the LORD disappeared or went up in the fire, showing he more than physical, both exclaimed that they had seen the LORD and expected to die. That sure points to them recognizing God as spiritual to me.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Perhaps. But it's not really clear from the narrative. Fire is still a physical phenomenon.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden wuhh...? I think you need to reread judges 6 & 13. I'm not debating the fire, but the man, as best I can understand it, translated into the sky as if in the smoke of the offering. And with Gideon He just disappeared instantly.
And Jacob too after he wrestled God, though it's not as stark as in the two Judges chapters.
Which reminds me of the ladder to heaven...
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Believing in the "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean believing in the spiritual. Ancient Jews did believe that God had absolute power to do whatever he wanted, including making people appear and vanish, and so on. Whether this came from a spiritual source as we think of that today is much more murky.
@Joshua That, of course, was seen in a dream. Dreams and visions are all through the Old Testament. But were they necessarily spiritual experiences as we would think of it today, happening in another realm? If God wanted to show people things in dreams and visions, God was perfectly capable of doing that.
Mind you, I think these were all spiritual experiences. But there is very little evidence that the ancient Hebrews thought of them as being spiritual in the way we think of that today.
 
Joshua
Joshua
8:32 PM
@LeeWoofenden Early, you actually raised the point when you reminded me that Papias and Justin were not Jesus... Which I never said they were, I was taking about 80 years later. You changed the topic to Jesus.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
The common translation of the Hebrew shamayim as "heaven" obscures the text, I believe. In most if not all cases it should be translated as "sky." And when it is translated that way, the text takes on a rather different meaning--and one that is, I think, much closer to the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe.
@Joshua No. You were speaking of them as if they were speaking for Jesus:
> yet Papias and Justin and others we have record of in early 2nd century all affirm a "materialistic" resurrection. Thank goodness God sent Swedenborg to explain what Jesus couldn't.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I'm beginning to think that the way you think of spiritual is actually not at all the way I think today.... My thinking perhaps lines up with the Hebrews.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Do you believe that there is a distinct plane of spiritual reality?
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden exactly..I was not saying they speak for Jesus any more than you say Swedenborg speaks for Jesus. The point was whether they had twisted what Jesus had said within 80 years. Please try to follow along.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Perhaps I completely missed your point, but it certainly sounded like you were saying that Papias and Justin were affirming a "materialistic" resurrection, which, unlike Swedenborg, explains what Jesus meant. Are you saying that Papias and Justine were actually contradicting Jesus? Or that they were explaining something Jesus couldn't?
@Joshua Apparently you believe that Papias and Justin were right, and that they, like Jesus, taught a materialistic resurrection. If not, then I certainly did miss your point.
 
Joshua
Joshua
8:39 PM
@LeeWoofenden ... Yes they affirmed physical resurrection. Which means... Either they had it right, or they had already twisted Jesus's message in John 5. I really don't understand what is difficult about that. Don't try to read more into it, simply read what I wrote
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua I hate to say it, but your writing is not all that clear. And I've read and edited a lot of different people's writing.
@Joshua Beyond that, I'm not familiar enough with the writings of Papias and Justin to have a clear understanding of what they did and didn't believe. Later Christian thinkers often read things into earlier ones that weren't really there, or that were loosely held as a common cultural assumption of the time rather than as a definitive belief.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden They taught what they thought Jesus taught, which they thought was materialistic. They were either right or wrong. If right, you're wrong. If wrong, you may be right, and would mean the message had been twisted at some point. The point was this was 80 years later.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Perhaps they were wrong. But "twisted" is a strong word. They may have just in simplicity thought of it as a physical resurrection. There were many things that those early Christians did not really think out very carefully. The earliest Christians were more focused on moral issues and living a good life than they were on doctrinal and theological correctness.
By the time of the Council of Nicaea, things had changed. Christian theologians were formulating careful doctrinal statements, and saying that everyone who didn't believe the precise doctrines they formulated would be an anathema, go to hell, etc.
Exactly when that transition took place I'm not enough of a church historian to say.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Really... Were they? Johns gospel seems to show incredibly more advanced theology than earlier Gospels. And you JUST admitted to not being familiar with two of the earliest non apostolic writers... And you make absolute statements about how complex their theology was?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
The disciples themselves clearly thought that Jesus was going to establish a physical kingdom in this world. So yes, there was a lot of physical-mindedness among Jesus' early followers.
@Joshua John's gospel certainly is the most spiritual of the four. And the book of Revelation, commonly attributed to him, is spiritual through-and-through. But John was rather unusual among the Apostles.
@Joshua I simply don't give a lot of weight to extra-biblical sources. They're good for gaining a sense of Christian history and how the early Christians received and thought about the Gospel. But the Bible itself is the Word of God. Papias and Justin aren't.
 
Joshua
Joshua
8:50 PM
Dialogue with Trypho chapter 80
@LeeWoofenden I never said they were! I've only been speaking of them in the context of historical theology.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
In general answer to your question, I think few to none of Jesus' own followers, not to mention the early Christians, truly understood the spiritual underpinnings of his message. For the most part, the message was practical: about believing in Jesus, repenting from sin and living a good life instead. There just isn't a whole lot of theology--as we think of that today--in the Bible.
Jesus himself said he had many things to say to them that they could not "bear" or understand. And throughout the Gospels the disciples are continually misunderstanding and misinterpreting his statements, getting corrected by him, and then going on to misinterpret and misunderstand him some more.
If it weren't for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible itself would be a complete mess. But God had to work with the people he had available to him, low-minded and unspiritual as most of them were.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden well I think you are conflating the disciples before the crucifixion with after. They clearly didn't get it before, sure. Doesn't mean they didn't after. Jesus himself said they would get it afterwards
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Only Peter, James, and John saw Jesus transfigured. And they were completely dumbfounded by it. They had no idea what it meant. The rest experienced Jesus primarily as a man, made of flesh and blood.
@Joshua It took the crucifixion for them to finally get through their thick skulls what Jesus said to Pilate just before the crucifixion: "My kingdom is not of this world."
Of course, millions of Christians today still don't get it, and they still think that Jesus is going to establish an earthly kingdom. Go figger.
So yes, after the crucifixion smashed their materialistic idea that Jesus would be an earthly Messiah, they finally began to think a little more spiritually, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But it took the crushing of their old, materialistic ideas through the crucifixion to finally accomplish that.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden probably because they were told that he was going to return in the same way that he left Jesus never rebukes the idea that he will rule an earthly kingdom. He only rejected that he was there to do it the first time. His own testimony in Matthew 24 shows that.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua So when he said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," that was not a rebuke of the idea that he will rule an earthly kingdom? It sounds crystal clear to me. Here is what he said about the sort of king he was:
> “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)
 
Joshua
Joshua
9:03 PM
@LeeWoofenden what do you think of this world means?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua I don't see anything in Matthew 24 saying that Jesus would establish an earthly kingdom. Do you?
@Joshua Jesus was talking to Pilate. Pilate was attempting to determine whether Jesus was a threat to Rome's power. Most of the Jewish "Messiahs" were setting out to establish a worldly kingdom by throwing off Roman rule and establishing themselves as earthly kings. Jesus was telling Pilate that he had no interest in that, and that his kingdom was of an entirely different kind.
Pilate wanted to exonerate Jesus precisely because he realized Jesus had no aspirations to earthly power in conflict with Rome's power.
@Joshua Oh, and I suspect the angels' statement to the disciples in Acts 1:11 about Jesus re-appearing the same way he had disappeared was a reference to Pentecost as described in Acts 2, in which the Holy Spirit came upon them like a mighty wind from heaven.
Oh, and even after the resurrection, the disciples still hadn't gotten the nature of his kingdom through their thick skulls:
> So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
They still thought he would throw off Roman rule and restore Israel to its former glory as an earthly kingdom, with Jesus as its king. What could Jesus do with people who were so persistently earthly-minded in their thinking?
And yet, they were the best available to proclaim his message.
Today, the materialism continues in all the conservative Christian sects who to this day continue to think that Jesus is going to establish an earthly kingdom, despite everything he taught about this in the Gospels.
I just don't know how much clearer he could have been than he was in his words to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). He didn't say, "It isn't now, but it will be in the future." He said, simply, "My kingdom is not of this world." Why is that so hard for so many Christians to understand?
 
Joshua
Joshua
On the road to Emmaus they asked him similar things but Jesus did not rebuke them entirely. rather he tells them did they not know he had to suffer first and then enter into his glory. the problem was not the what, their mistake was the order.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua So you think that Jesus glory is the glory of an earthly king? Is that really what you think???
 
Joshua
Joshua
Of this world denotes quality, not location.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
9:19 PM
@Joshua Try telling that to Pilate. Pilate clearly understood what Jesus was saying. That's why he didn't go out and say "I find this man guilty," but rather, "I find this man innocent."
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I really don't understand how Jesus is saying two thousand years ago he was not there to establish an Earthly Kingdom at that time means that he is not going to fulfill his promises to return. It does not mean he cannot establish an Earthly Kingdom after he returns it only means he was not there to establish an Earthly Kingdom at that time
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
It was Pilate's specific job to suppress and destroy any rival to Caesar. If Pilate had the slightest inclination based on that conversation that Jesus had aspirations to earthly power, he would have had him crucified immediately, on his own authority, without having to be goaded into it by the Jewish leaders.
@Joshua Where does Jesus ever say that he is going to establish an earthly kingdom? He specifically says that his kingdom is not of this world. Where does he ever say that it is or ever will be of this world?
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden none of this has any bearing on a future Kingdom only on whether he was there to overthrow Rome at that time.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Keep in mind that his disciples believed that he would be coming soon, within their own lifetimes. So if there was any idea that he was going to establish an earthly kingdom, they thought it would be within a few decades, not thousands of years into the future. But it didn't happen. And it never will happen.
@Joshua So when Jesus comes back he is going to overthrow all of the political kingdoms of this world and rule as an earthly king on a throne here on earth? Is that what you think?
If so, then I would say that is a very materialistic view of Jesus' teachings.
 
Joshua
Joshua
Well there is when he quotes Daniel 7:13 to the priests. There's Matthew 19, 24 and 25 and statements of sitting on a throne after he comes
@LeeWoofenden yes I do. For a Time, a millennium or however long you think that is. And then there will be the final judgement and a new heavens and new earth and New Jerusalem. Last chapter of Revelation
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
9:28 PM
@Joshua John describes everything in the book of Revelation as happening in heaven, and seen when he was in the spirit. It's a gross misunderstanding of that book to think that he is talking about events on earth. Everything he describes, he describes as taking place in the spiritual world.
There is no basis in the book of Revelation to think that these things will happen on earth.
@Joshua So you think that "the throne of his glory" in Matthew 25:31 is a physical throne here in the physical world? You think that the Last Judgment will take place here on earth? Even though he is described as having "all the angels with him"? Do angels live on earth? Don't angels live in heaven? Clearly, Matthew 25:31-46 is set in heaven--meaning in the spiritual world--not on earth.
Do you believe that the "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" mentioned in Matthew 25:46 will take place on this earth? Will the evil be eternally tormented in a burning trash pit (Gehenna) here on earth?
Do you really think that all of this is going to take place physically, here in this material world?
If so, that is the very definition of a materialistic, earthly understanding of Scripture.
Mind you, you're welcome to believe that if you wish. But it is materialistic and earthly, by definition.
And that is precisely what I am saying, and how I am describing such beliefs.
 
Joshua
Joshua
9:43 PM
@LeeWoofenden Daniel 7, Paul n Thessalonians and John in Revelation 20 all of them that the angels are coming with Jesus upon his return. I never said they live here but that doesn't mean they can't come here with him
Rev 21:3 "...Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God"
I don't see the spiritual as being a separate plane or dimension as you seem to, I see it interwoven in our reality. So everything I am saying still has spiritual aspect to it. And maybe it will be all spiritual but was only communicated in a way we can understand, but what you are describing is something completely distinct from this reality. So much so I don't even know how you think you can know anything about it.
God gave nature and good food to eat and warm breezes and new things to see and explore and the ability to create things ourselves and like a Father, God delights in us delighting in him. Just as I delight when my son experiences new things and wants to be near to me and be just like me. That's the image of God that we are created in. We were create in and for a world not much unlike ours, just uncorrupted by sin
Why would heaven suddenly be so completely different? Sure it will be more and better than even the garden of Eden, but that doesn't demand it be some ethereal dimension
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
10:02 PM
@Joshua According to Swedenborg, heaven really isn't all that different from earth. In fact, he was criticized by the Christians of his day precisely because the heaven he described was too much like earth. It is, in fact, very much the way you are describing it: a beautiful place in which we enjoy good food, warm breezes, and the companionship of our loved ones without the corruption of sin.
It simply isn't made of physical matter. It's made of spiritual substance. And that does cause it to have some distinct differences from the physical world as well. It's all described in Swedenborg's most popular book, Heaven and Hell.
This world and everything in it is, according to Swedenborg, a reflection of the things that exist in the spiritual world. Only the things on this earth are made of physical matter, with all of its limitations, whereas the things in the spiritual world are made of spiritual substance, which has far fewer limitations than physical matter, and therefore is far more responsive to the life of the human spirit, and to God's presence in it.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Hah. Maybe you're more of a materialist than I am... You've made the spiritual material. No matter how you try to spin it, there is far more biblical evidence for what I have said than there is for that idea of heaven. Or, perhaps, we're talking about the same final heaven, you just refuse to recognize the events I read leading up to it.
@LeeWoofenden As always, I've enjoyed our talk. I must go now though. Till next time.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
10:20 PM
(got interrupted) Swedenborg saw in the spiritual world everything we see here on earth, and many more things that don't exist because they're not possible in this material world.
@Joshua No, I've made the spiritual substantial rather than wispy and ethereal. Those who have been there say that it is much more real, and certainly more alive than our physical universe, which is relatively dark, dead, and unreal in comparison.
@Joshua I think it's more a matter of you reading the Bible materially whereas I read it spiritually. But to me, the spiritual is real, not ephemeral and ghostly.
@Joshua As Swedenborg said to one of the skeptics about his descriptions of the afterlife, when we have both entered the spiritual world, then "You and I will have much to talk about." :-)
 
Joshua
Joshua
10:40 PM
@LeeWoofenden ... Again, I said I see both interwoven. Neither exists independent of the other.
 
Joshua
Joshua
10:50 PM
Well I have to clarify that, all the spiritual parts of this reality are not necessarily interdependent on each other, but are simply not intended to operate alone. And none of this includes God, of course, just the realms he has created.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
11:27 PM
@Joshua Yes, they are interwoven . . . but distinct from one another. The material is an expression of the spiritual, which is, in turn, and expression of God's nature. As an example, the human mind and the human body are interdependent as long as we are living in this world, but they are quite distinct from one another, and exist on different levels. Love is not a physical thing, but a hug that expresses love is a physical thing.
 

« first day (1766 days earlier)      last day (2855 days later) »