@LeeWoofenden Anything becomes evil "if we make it primary," save perhaps the love of God. God is unchanging and eternal, and unique in his knowledge and experience of himself, and so everything He is, He is uniquely unto himself. Since He is loving, he is also self-loving. The Father loves the Son, and the Son also the Father. If Messiah is the fulfillment of the law, and the law is to Love one's neighbor as one's self, then the touchstone of the law is the self-love of Messiah.

I should say, "Since He is loving, he is also self-loving, because he was already loving in the beginning. "

@El'endiaStarman Here you go:

@Andrew I simply don't think self-love is applicable to God. But I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.

@LeeWoofenden Did Swedenborg leave out any Old Testament books?

@LeeWoofenden Likewise. He seems to engage in a great deal of self-praise, which I find pleasurable, since he is infinitely more able to praise himself than I am able to praise him, presently.

@Andrew I do agree that anything except the love of God becomes evil if it is made primary.

@Andrew I think that the "self-praise" of God recorded in the Bible is for our benefit. So that we will learn to praise God. God himself, in my view, needs no self-praise.

@El'endiaStarman Hmm. 29 out of 33. Proverbs is one...

1 and 2 Chronicles (which makes sense).

And Esther.

@Andrew Humans do not have absolute truth. Only relative truth. And relative to the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic model, Copernicus and Galileo were right: the sun does not orbit the earth; the earth orbits the sun. The fact that we've made further scientific progress since then does not make them wrong. Rather, it makes them closer to the truth than Aristotle, but farther from the truth than we are today.

Wait, Ruth's not there either.

@LeeWoofenden Again I agree- his self-praise is certainly for our benefit, both to educate us about his character and instruct us in spontaneous worship of him. I would suggest a parallel with his self-love, if we had already not agreed to disagree.

I don't agree that "ultimately, all scientific theories are proven to be false." Rather, over time, scientific theories get closer and closer to the truth--which is the best we humans can do, and which we will be doing to all eternity. Our minds are finite. God's mind, and God's truth, is infinite. We can only move closer to the infinite, which is where absolute truth resides. We can never actually reach it.

@El'endiaStarman No wait, 66 - 27 is 39, not 33. Okay, There are 10 missing. I've got 5...

(And this is without referring to a list of OT books. :P )

@LeeWoofenden When you say "do not have," do you mean can not discover, or that no statement uttered by humans can be universally true? Can a statement be universally false?

Ah, Job is another one.

@El'endiaStarman Does Swedenborg justify his rejection of these, systematically?

Okay, gave up and looked at a list. I missed Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.

@El'endiaStarman Yes, Swedenborg left out all the books in the Jewish "Writings" except Psalms, Lamentation, and Daniel. So Ruth, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are not in Swedenborg's canon.

or first I should ask if his failure to include them as canon includes a denial that they are instructive

@Andrew I don't know, you'd have to ask @LeeWoofenden...

@Andrew Read my answer to your question. He did consider the Acts and Epistles to be instructive. He also considered Job to be an ancient book that had much symbolism, but still not divinely inspired. And he occasionally quoted from the other non-canonical (in his view) books of the Old Testament in making various points. In his later writings, he quoted fairly extensively from the Acts and the Epistles in establishing his doctrinal points.

@Andrew Truth is not a matter of statements uttered. Statements uttered are mere representations of truth. It is the conception in the mind of the human that utters or hears the statement that is closer to or farther away from the truth. And our mind is not capable of comprehending the absolute truth that is God as it is in itself. We can only comprehend adaptations of that truth to the finite capacity of our mind.

And when we are engaged in evil, the "truth" we have is actually falsity, which is a misrepresentation of truth.

@LeeWoofenden Thank you for your excellent answer.

@Andrew You're welcome. It's my pleasure.

@LeeWoofenden I've often thought it was silly that many protestants and non-denominational Christians will hold the ecumenical councils in contempt and yet embrace their canon with steadfastness.

Which is why the question was of interest to me.

@Andrew As far as providing a point-by-point explanation of why each book of the Protestant Bible is or is not included in his canon, no, Swedenborg doesn't give such an explanation. His general explanation is as found in the quoted material: the ones he saw as having an internal sense he included; the ones he saw as not having an internal sense he didn't.

@LeeWoofenden So truth has an infinite capacity, and when we say "God exists", it approaches a truth we cannot genuinely comprehend...yes?

Since then, various Swedenborgian theologians have provided point-by-point defenses of Swedenborg's canon. But Swedenborg himself did not. I think that for the Old Testament, he went basically with what he saw as Jesus' canon as reflected in Luke 24:27, 44. Psalms and Daniel are certainly included; they are referenced fairly heavily in the Gospels. Lamentations is trickier; I believe Swedenborg saw it as an extension of the book of Jeremiah.

@Andrew Yes, though I would say a truth we can't fully comprehend. We can comprehend that God exists. But we cannot comprehend the full reality of God's existence. I think the best we can do is an accurate representation of the truth on our own (finite) level of comprehension. We can have truth, but we cannot have the full truth.

For the New Testament, Swedenborg went with the books where God himself is the main speaker and character. The Acts are the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles are the letters of the Apostles. So they focus more on the words and deeds of the Apostles than on the words and deeds of the Lord himself.

Swedenborg saw the Acts and the Epistles as necessary for the founding and building up of the Christian Church, in expressing in clearer and more doctrinal terms teachings that are contained in the Word of God but might not come across so clearly to people without the teachings of the Apostles.

Unfortunately, from a Swedenborgian perspective, the writings of Paul, especially, have been badly misunderstood and misinterpreted in the Christian Church, and especially in the Protestant branch of the Christian Church. So their usefulness to the church became greatly vitiated in the later centuries of the church.

In fact, Swedenborg saw it as Providential that the Acts and the Epistles were included in the Protestant Bible because that way Protestants would distort and falsify human writings rather than divine ones, which would have been much more spiritually destructive. Most false (in Swedenborg's view) Protestant doctrine is based on the writings of Paul, not on the Gospels themselves.

@LeeWoofenden Well, back then to the nature of that discussion. Science, in the cartesian sense, logically depends on first principles, which are taken for granted as true- some set of natural laws. The problem with copernicanism to its rivals was that is was immediately false based on the set of natural laws that precluded any object but the Earth being the center of God's universe. The problem with copernicanism now is that it is immediately false based on the set of natural laws that preclude...

@LeeWoofenden that the universe can have a center.

It was considered true for some time in between, but only relatively true, that is, according to the principles and evidence of the time.

I should have said most false Protestant doctrine is based on misinterpretation of the writings of Paul rather than on misinterpretation of the Gospels themselves.

But that's exactly what Science is- a trek toward the horizon of relative truths.

@Andrew That's what religion is, too. Both are human institutions.

@LeeWoofenden Well, perhaps that's what intelligence is, too.

@LeeWoofenden Perhaps I'll also start calling myself a critic of religion

@Andrew Keep in mind that in the days of Copernicus and Galileo, the universe was generally conceived as being not all that much bigger than our solar system. Though there may have been inklings that it was much bigger, from their perspective of the universe, thinking of the sun as being the center was not so far off, because though they theoretically knew that stars were other suns, that idea hadn't really sunk in yet.

@LeeWoofenden Well, that conception was also false, but I jest.

It takes a while for the human mind to adjust to newly discovered realities about the universe that we live in--whether we're talking about the physical universe or the spiritual universe.

@LeeWoofenden The distinction you just made is the very point.

@Andrew "False" is a strong word. It was a movement toward truth. Just as all of our human ideas and conceptions, both scientific and spiritual, are movements toward the truth.

I could say that the statement "God exists" is false because the concept of God's existence that we have is not the real or full truth as it exists in God. But I would not say that, because it is as true as we are able to conceive with our finite minds. So for us it is truth, even if it does not accurately reflect the full reality of God's existence.

@LeeWoofenden Even for the scientists themselves, not true implies false.

@LeeWoofenden Yes I read that article you wrote, it was enlightening. The fault at least somewhat lies with language- when I say "the sun is rising", I mean relative to the horizon, or even that the earth is rotating into the sun, which is now visible, though I use the archaic phrase.

@LeeWoofenden So, and I realize that this may be a self defeating question, but do you suppose that there exists an absolute truth that corresponds to "God exists"?

@LeeWoofenden Can we agree that "God is not" is absolutely false?

We interrupt this broadcast for the total lunar eclipse now in progress!

@LeeWoofenden I am not in the path of the shadow, so there is no total lunar eclipse.

There are clouds everywhere in my area. >_< >:(

@El'endiaStarman me too. It's a spectacularly fuzzy crescent.

@LeeWoofenden Maybe our example statement is too transcendental for a discussion of statements of science.

@Andrew Yes - your protest that your doctrine is not Gnostic in tenor rings hollow because it has exactly the same effect. To infer "Until then, the will of the flesh battles the will of the spirit, and so the will of the person is not free." is to infer that is impossible to fight a battle as a free man even if you are fighting against the enslavers - why should this be so? Scripture says that "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" as well as "walk by the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh". It's difficult for me to see how your doctrine is not a negation of this latter promise.

My 12-year-old son got this shot of the eclipse with my DSLR

@BruceAlderman Wow, that's really nice!

@El'endiaStarman We were playing around with different exposure times. His first attempt was 5 seconds, and this is what he got.

Taken through my telescope with my phone (not at all professional!)

This was toward the end of the eclipse.

Still pretty cool.

My Reptilian buddies gave me the best seat in the house.

@fredsbend We always knew you were an alien . . . .

@LeeWoofenden Wow!

@bruisedreed First, thank you for joining our conversation. I know that I can come across as argumentative, but I speak in good faith and what I really love is coming together to discuss the scriptures with others. Whether or not you agree with my perspective, thank you for giving me the opportunity to expound upon it.

@bruisedreed No, it most certainly does not have the same effect. In the gnostic ideal, the flesh is wicked because it has physical being. So Christ's flesh was wicked, according to them. According to the Scriptures, the flesh is not wicked because it is physical, but it is wicked because it was in Adam when he sinned. In the gnositic ideal, death brings purification because of the destruction of the body.

In the sense in which I am speaking, it is not death or destruction that brings purification, but resurrection of the body in Christ. In the gnostic ideal, resurrection is only spiritual. But according to Paul, the resurrection is bodily. So in the gnostic ideal, the spiritually resurrected await the death of the body, but according to this doctrine, the spiritually born await resurrection of the body.

@bruisedreed Why should this be so? Because freedom that is ineffective is not freedom at all. If I am in chains, then I am not free, regardless of my legal standing or how I got them there. But we are not talking about freedom and liberty of the person, but free will, which is not like liberty in a legal sense.

Free will, which is what we are talking about, is actual and effectual freedom to animate the body according to the intent of the person.

@bruisedreed It's difficult to see how Paul's doctrine is not a negation of this promise, when he says "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. .. I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

The difficulty then, must be yours, because Paul does not have difficulty to glory despite his (and our) condition.

Indeed, "thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

@bruisedreed Thank you for providing an excellent example with your comment about the emancipation proclamation. Imagine that this slave, living in a local municipality that defends its citizens' ability to own slaves as a right after the emancipation proclamation, is sitting in chains, shackled to his master's cart beside a busy street.

@Andrew and the ability to actually have our own intent

@bruisedreed One man passes him by and points at the headline, and reading it to him tells him as he sits in his chains, "The slaves have been freed. You're a free man! How does it feel?" How can he begin living as a free man, as you say, while he is still in chains? A free man lives without chains! He is probably more angry now than he was before- he might wonder if the man was lying, or even mocking him.

@bruisedreed Another man sees him in his despair and puts his hand on him and says "The President has declared that all slaves are free, though this municipality is corrupt. But have hope, His army marches south, and will be here within a fortnight. At that time, your chains will be broken, and your master's house will be burned to the ground."

And he sits back in awestruck and grateful beyond his reckoning that he has gained a champion like this president, who will not only declare him to be free today, but come soon and make that declaration physically effective.

@AJHenderson :24384155 Yes! That ability comes from the Spirit, which is why there is freedom where the Spirit is. By the Spirit we are 1) made aware of sin, and enabled therefore to know what is contrary to it, 2) afforded the desire to act rightly and contrary to it, and 3) given a guarantee that we will be physically and effectively made right. Praise be to God!

@bruisedreed Hence, "walk by the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh."

This is why Paul tells the Galatians, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."

That is to say, "You have the Spirit, so act accordingly."