The Upper Room

« first day (1883 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2755 days later) »

3:07 AM

Excellent answer! I do have a million questions about this, but at least I don't see three gods disguised as people. I do, however, see one God disguised as a human, but I'm still interested in understanding how this interpretation fits with Scripture and the gospels. I think you know this sounds close to modalism, but there is one thing in particular I'd like to ask. You quoted John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". What is your interpretation of John 17:21-22 "That they **all may be one**; **as** thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they **also may be one in us**: that the world m…

1 hour later…

Lee Woofenden

4:26 AM

@anonymouswho Thanks. On the modalism issue: Swedenborg's doctrine is not modalist. See:

A: What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

tl;dr Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) agrees with Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists in affirming the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while denying that they are three persons. This has led to the common error of labeling Swedenborg and Swedenborgians "modalist." However, ...

I have come to believe that the Trinity of Persons is itself essentially modalist with its concept of a single substance existing in three Persons. It's not Sabellian modalism, but it is, in my view, a form of modalism. Swedenborg's theology, by contrast, is not at all modalist, as explained in the above answer.

@anonymouswho On those passages from John: It's a mistake to read the Bible as if it's continually using technical language in which words always have one and only one meaning. In ordinary language, words vary in meaning according to their context.

So even though the same words are used, it should be obvious that we do not have the exact same kind of oneness with God that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have as three different parts of one Being of God. But we do have a oneness with God if we accept it in that God can be in us and we can be in God, not as part of God, but in relationship with God.

Further, everything good and true in us is not actually our own, but rather is God's in us, and is God flowing into us. We don't have any being of our own. Rather, we are "Containers for God," as I put it in one of my blog posts. So God really is in us, and we are also in God when the love, wisdom, and power of God is surrounding us and flowing through us.

However we are still not God, but are distinct from God because we are created beings into which God flows rather than being the uncreated Being of God.

There's much more to this, of course. And Swedenborg quotes extensively from Scriptures in putting forward his doctrine about God. But it's too much to cover in this brief chatroom format.

1 hour later…

anonymouswho

5:53 AM

@LeeWoofenden Hmmm...I think there are some key things about Swedenborg's interpretation that I need to know before I can understand this. What does it mean when you say "the son and holy spirit came into existence with the birth of Jesus Christ"? Also, I would agree with what you said about John if John was not the author of John 10:30.

However, it seems clear to me that we, as men, may become one with God even as the man Yeshua is one with God. We become this when we desire to follow God's word, because we obtain the same will and purpose that God has for all of mankind (which I likewise believe He will accomplish).

6 hours later…

Decrypted

11:33 AM

@anonymouswho If a man thinks about himself as a body, is that thought him?

If he thinks of himself telling his other thoughts "exactly how to think" therefore representing his "true ambition" does he also represent himself?

And if this is possible for a man to do, why should we think different about what God can do?

And at the same time, is a thought a "full representation" of the thinker?

Therefore say there is one thinker, and many thoughts. Yet the thinker thought of himself only for a short time, then stopped doing that.

Likewise, "Whoever finds their life will lose it."

And we follow the command when we think of others.

user227867

12:01 PM

I read that the New Revised Standard Version is the most accurate translation used by biblical scholars, and that the New Oxford Annotated Bible is the best study bible using this translation as a base. What are your opinions on this? I am thinking of purchasing a copy for myself for serious study.

Nathaniel

12:48 PM

@WillHunting I don't have personal experience with it, but it appears to be a solid academic study bible, one that is at least influenced by textual criticism/liberalism.

So you won't find a lot of notes on life application, or defenses of the inerrancy of Scripture

If that's the sort of thing you are looking for, go for it. If you want a study bible that goes out of its way to reconcile apparent textual discrepancies in order to defend the accuracy of the Bible, you'll probably want something else.

4 hours later…

Lee Woofenden

4:22 PM

@WillHunting I have found the NRSV to be a fairly reliable translation, though not flawless. It takes fewer liberties with the original text than many more recent translations. The NIV, though it does take some unwarranted liberties in places, is often better for the translation of specific terms that may be somewhat obscure, such as names of lesser known plants and animals. It also uses more modern standards of paragraphing than the NRSV, which is a revision of the KJV.

@anonymouswho The Incarnation must be seen with an understanding of God's relationship to Creation.

@anonymouswho God exists in an eternal, timeless, spaceless, changeless state of being that is above ad beyond the created spiritual and material realms of existence, where change, time, and space (or their spiritual analogs) are part of the fabric of reality. For God to be incarnated into this earthly realm, then, the eternal, timeless, spaceless God had to enter into time and space and inhabit the realm bounded and defined by time and space.

Due to the nature of time and space, that had to take place at a particular point in time and space, making the Incarnation a "particular" event. And from the perspective of created beings embedded in time and space, this means that God was different before the Incarnation than after. Before the Incarnation there was no Son or Holy Spirit, although there was the divine wisdom and power that they express. After the Incarnation, there was a Son and Holy Spirit.

But from the divine, timeless, spaceless perspective there was no change, because from the viewpoint of eternity the Son and the Holy Spirit are always a present reality. This whole concept is difficult for us humans to grasp because our minds are embedded in space and time and think in terms of them. I tackled it in a little more depth in this article: "Does God Change?"

@anonymouswho In Swedenborgian theology, during his lifetime on earth Jesus had a finite human nature from his mother Mary that was no different than the human nature of any other human being. (We reject the non-biblical doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.) However, unlike other human beings, his soul was the divine being that is called "the Father" in the Bible. So in Swedenborgian theology, he was not a mere man like other men.

During the course of his lifetime on earth, he put off everything limited and finite from his human mother, and replaced it with the divine nature of the Father, so that by the time he rose from death and "ascended to the Father," he was fully divine and fully one with the Father.

For more on this, see:

Q: How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?

One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken. Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this ...

anonymouswho

5:36 PM

@Decrypted No I don't think if a man thinks about himself as a body, that the thought is him. If I think about myself having an elephant body, that thought is not me. I'm just a human with a wild imagination. However, I couldn't really argue with the idea that if a man thought about himself in an elephant body, then the imagined elephant body might contain the spirit of the man.

And if there were no such thing as elephants, and the man was the only one that ever imagined them, then his spirit would be inside every elephant that was ever imagined.

3 hours later…

You did what to the cows Elisha?!

8:23 PM

Q: Generational Curses In Hinduism

So the bible talks about generational curses? My question is this: Does hinduism have generational curses? If so could you include some verses describing them?

christianity

anonymouswho

@LeeWoofenden Where do the Scriptures define God as existing in an "eternal, timeless, spaceless, changeless state of being". If he is timeless and changeless, how did He speak with Abraham and Moses, and how did He "enter into" time and space? If something is timeless and changeless, then it cannot move. Aristotle called this god "the unmoving mover", which is clearly a contradiction.

The Scriptures say: "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 115:8-4

The Scriptures say YHVH is "the ancient of days", the beginning and the end" (not 'without beginning and without end), and "from ancient times unto futurity- you are God" Psalm 90:2

Decrypted

9:04 PM

@anonymouswho Here is the Logic of God's timelessness.

God in a technical definition tis "Motion that understands all things."

The equation Distance = Rate * Time shows us that for distance to occur, rate and time must have "container values".

That without time, regardless of the "allotted rate" what distance occurs?

Therefore its the allotment of Distance, that time occurs.

For time simply is a comparative value of distance, of this "amount of movement" compared to this "amount of movement".

Earlier then movement, nothing compared simply to nothing.

Therefore acknowledging a concept of "timelessness".

Also acknowledging a concept of a "beginning".

This means then that time itself started the moment that God moved.

As long as God moves, time does indeed exist.

If an end occurs, its simply the decision that God makes to stop moving.

However its a commandment, that no one should take the name to nothingness.

Therefore ensuring that God will continue to move.

Understanding God as Motion is a necessary understanding to understand the concept of sowing to the flesh.

For the flesh is to respond with the body, the opposite and equal reaction.

For the Law eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life came as a law as a punishment.

Its like telling a child to not eat a cookie, then after the child eats a cookie, commanding them to eat many.

Yet salvation comes when they do not eat the cookie.

Therefore its either "do to others as they do to me" or its "do to others a I would have them do to me".

Yet the flesh of doing to others as they do to me leads to death.

As we see as a historical example, of the many many dead Jews.

Also the shortness of the life of Pope Urban II after giving the command to start the Crusades.

This means the end to the military.

This means the end to all wars.

This means the beginning of eternal peace.

As we should expect from the "Prince of Peace".

Let the Jihadist do as they please, and trust that God will be your sword.

Time to completely stop American military functionality completely.

Instead lets spend the money on giving the Burger Kings.

I would very much appreciate a free Burger King.

Then lets show the true example of Christ, that the Quran does not understand, in its concept of punishment.

Does Elisha speak?

9:34 PM

Q: Should questions with an agenda be strongly encouraged to state upfront what it is?

If Mosaic law could never justify, does that make the law to be insincere or dishonest? First, I think this is a good question. However, as it currently stands I can see that the author is baiting the question reading and answering audience. He/she is asking a question that he/she believes is ...

discussion

2 hours later…

Lee Woofenden

11:55 PM

@anonymouswho "The unmoving mover," or as it is more commonly translated, "the unmoved mover," is not a contradiction. It is saying that God (or the ultimate reality) moves other things without itself moving.

@anonymouswho The OT was not written under the influence of ancient Greek philosophy, but in a separate culture, which seems not to have possessed the level of abstract thought present in Greek philosophy relating to time and eternity--and certainly not the level of abstract thought that exists in philosophy today. So the Bible uses time-bound metaphors to refer to the timelessness of God.

@anonymouswho The idea that God is eternal and not subject to our human timescales is conveyed poetically in passages such as this one:

> For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4)

« first day (1883 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2755 days later) »

all rooms