The Upper Room

ThaddeusB

12:50 AM

Well, Jim G. just proved beyond all doubt that he is a troll (it was pretty obvious already, IMO).

(He just accepted a blatantly inappropriate tirade as an "answer" to an old question of his.)

Lee Woofenden

1:57 AM

@ThaddeusB You asked for it? You got it!

0

A: How can the "Son of Man" passages of Matthew 24 be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy?

I am responding to this question primarily because it originated in a Christianity.SE chatroom discussion that I was involved in, which started (more or less) here, and because I was invited by the OP here to respond to the question. This answer is based on the Bible interpretations and doctrines...

(But you might regret it . . . . )

El'endia Starman

@ThaddeusB An absurdly committed troll.

Does Elisha speak?

4:01 AM

0

Q: what determines the order of questions in the stack?

When I see a question in the all questions list one page one cAn I assume it is a new question or an old one with a new answer or do the questions shuffle automatically?

ThaddeusB

5:16 AM

@El'endiaStarman He may have started out as a legitimate seeker

@LeeWoofenden Haha, I'll check it out tomorrow

El'endia Starman

5:47 AM

Ah ha ha. Community♦ says "Excessively long". :P

ThaddeusB

6:03 AM

@El'endiaStarman Must be Lee's answer :). Did my recent answer generate a flag. It made me captcha - I suppose because of all the French.

Lee Woofenden

@El'endiaStarman Once again, I resemble that remark!!!

El'endia Starman

@ThaddeusB No, no flag.

Lee Woofenden

@El'endiaStarman And let the record reflect that I warned you! ;-)

El'endia Starman

Ha. Still...you're the biggest offender in the "excessively long" category. :P

Lee Woofenden

@El'endiaStarman Guilty as charged! But I hear that someone recently wrote an answer so long that it required three "answers" to fit it all . . . I'm not mentioning any names (@JamesShewey).

I think we should selectively vote the "answers" so that they appear backwards, just to get his goat. :-P

El'endia Starman

6:46 AM

@LeeWoofenden .....most frequent offender, then. :P

Jack Douglas

… but if you'd like to continue this discussion, we'd probably be better of doing so in the chat room — Jack Douglas 1 min ago

@LawrenceDol I'm happy to talk in here if you'd like to do so, please just ping me

Adam Heeg

1:44 PM

@fredsbend I think the main point is Theology is many times Man making up answers to things God hasn't given us answers to. We should all remember we don't know much and that it is okay to not have all the answers.

Adam Heeg

2:10 PM

Was it common for the Jews to quote the Old Testament out of context? Some of the New Testament scripture that are quotes from the OT seem to be misused. I'm reading John now and both "Zeal for his house" and "Make paths straight" seem out of context.

Adam Heeg

2:27 PM

Also I've wondered about Paul's use of some Old Testament quotes - they seemed like a stretch, for instance, Jesus was the predicted 'offspring' of Abraham in Genesis.

I could use some help understanding the problem the jews are having with my question on the jewish stack exchange site. judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/65123/…

bruised reed

@AdamHeeg Imo, if scripture is inspired then 2 Peter 1:20-21 is an adequate explanation for this. If scripture is not inspired then why bother even asking the question - it doesn't matter a hoot.

@AdamHeeg here's something with regard to Jewish interpretations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_%28Jewish_exegesis%29

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed It is fine if that is your response, however for me it is inadequate. I don't believe God tries to hide his truth or meaning and then only reveal to a select few to then present it to the rest of us - which is essentially what you're claiming. To clarify, I'm asking because I could be wrong and there may be an understanding I don't have besides "those guys were given 'special' insight that we don't get to have".

That kind of answer is a turn off to anyone seeking to find truth and goes against the entire view of us being given rational thought by God in which to understand him and his creation and being made in his image (rational thought included).

bruised reed

2:45 PM

@AdamHeeg you want to tell God he should have done it? Great... let me know how you go with that

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power." - 1 Cor 2:4-5

read on & you find out who constitutes your "select few"

Rational thought can only take us to God if it's guided by the Holy Spirit, it is otherwise impotent to accomplish such an undertaking.

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed It is just as likely they were imperfect people and made mistakes and God is greater and stronger and still able to work through them and my Faith in him is a testimony to that. However, that argument is pointless to have cause neither of would ever prove anything, just bicker back and forth. My question was to see if there was an understanding I missed. Your answer appears to be no and that is okay.

I don't think we need to fight over temple meat - we both have Faith. Your faith gives you trust that the written word is true. my faith gives me trust that God is greater than the written word. In whatever way our belief strengthens our faith it is good for us and arguring about it is not good. Grace and peace between us on this topic.

bruised reed

@AdamHeeg If you're talking about the New Testament authors, I disagree. I do believe they are inspired writings and that they had the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret OT prophecies. They were not "Taking things out of context" because God had always intended the meaning given by the later interpretation even if it was hidden to earlier generations.

@AdamHeeg Sorry, I've got no idea what you would mean by "fighting over temple meat"

Adam Heeg

3:02 PM

I'm just saying this as an example of my thinking - not to restart the argument. when you say "hidden to earlier generations." I immediate think of how there is no deception in God and hidden meaning is a form of deception. I also think of the doubt it places in my mind of what truths are hidden to us today that we think we know and base our lives on. Hidden meaning just doesn't do well for any generation.

bruised reed

@AdamHeeg Why would you think hidden meaning is a form of deception? - "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." - Prov 25:2

Adam Heeg

"fighting over temple meat" is a reference to Paul where he speaks of how abstaining from eating temple meat is not required, but if it keeps younger christians from stumbling in faith then older christians should abstain from it for the sake of younger christians. I may have less faith about trusting the spirit, maybe you do about trusting God. I don't know, but it is okay for us to relate to each other in understanding.

@bruisedreed interesting point.

bruised reed

@AdamHeeg I certainly have no wish to cause you to stumble, but I'm struggling to understand how what I'm saying would be doing that to you? Could you explain further?

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed I am not saying you are causing me to stumble. We view the Word and God a little differently, but we both have Faith in God in our views. If we 'fight' about it we could potentially cause one another to stumble.

bruised reed

3:19 PM

@AdamHeeg I appreciate you have a different view. I don't think sharing my own view is fairly construed as 'fighting'? If you think any particular thing I say is overstated, incorrect or rude, please let me know the specifics - I don't mean to deliberately offend.

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed I think this comment, "you want to tell God he should have done it? Great... let me know how you go with that" perhaps took the discussion to a different level in my mind.

bruised reed

@AdamHeeg that does look a bit snarky doesn't it! I apologize. From my perspective, the Bible itself says that God wrote the Bible that way & I interpreted what you were saying as that it shouldn't have been done that way - that's where that comment was coming from.

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed I understand. I've had worse interactions in real life on this topic that got ugly by the people on the other end. My view and understanding is not well matured on this topic. I think @LeeWoofenden has a viewpoint that I lean towards on this topic (I can't state it clearly), but you made a good point with the Prov. 25 quote too.

bruised reed

I seriously think 1 Cor 2 has some pertinent points to speak to your concerns, particularly verse 7 & 8 - "7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

@AdamHeeg I think I can understand some of that attitude - if you are engaging in Bible study with people, particularly if you're facilitating it; it's hard not to give a tacit impression that you are taking the Bible as an authorititive voice - "the word of God" so to speak. If you turn around and then explicitly question that "authoritative voice" it could feel a bit like a bait and switch to some people - kind of a soft betrayal.

I think to avoid this, you'd have spell out your approach a little more explicitly from the outset if you're not already doing so

Does Elisha speak?

3:37 PM

0

Q: Why is 50 reputation needed to comment?

I have noticed that to comment, you need 50 reputation. Could someone please explain why? I think it is ridiculous and others (at least one other) shares my thoughts (see Why were the thieves who were crucified with Jesus crucified?). I am hoping for someone to shed some light on the subject.

support comments reputation

Adam Heeg

@bruisedreed this has been good. I'll be back to reread your input. I'm at work and need to refocus here. Thank you for the quality back and forth - iron sharpens iron, and as we all know iron isn't soft or cuddly :)

bruised reed

3:49 PM

@AdamHeeg you're welcome & I have to head off to bed anyways - God bless & good night

Elisha and his Brethren

-2

Q: What was "baptism" to the Jews in the time of John the Baptist?

Did Jews before John the Baptist practice something called "baptism"? If so, what was it and what was its significance? I am looking for a traditional Jewish understanding of this concept in its historical context. I understand that John the Baptist was a Jewish priest and perhaps an Essene wh...

history christianity

bruised reed

4:05 PM

@AdamHeeg PS The guys over at Mi Yodeya don't seem to know much about Mandaeans

also, for what it's worth - from Wikipedia's history of baptism - 'the Modern Hebrew term for "baptism" is "Christian Tvilah"'

ThaddeusB

@ElishaandhisBrethren Wow, such hostility because someone dared use a "Christian" word... With all due respect, they obviously don't know their history. John the Baptist is covered in detail by Josephus & regarded as an actual historical figure by like 99% of historians yet they imply he is a made up New Testament figure. Sad.

@AdamHeeg Yes, Christian use of the OT is very much in line with contemporary practices. I can give examples/details - do you have some specific set of interpretations in mind?

As a small (but VERY detailed example), see my Q and both A's on the Suffering Servant prophecy of Isaiah 53:

14

Q: Is there evidence that Isaiah 53 was viewed as a Messianic prophecy within Judaism, or is it an exclusively Christian interpretation?

The modern Jewish interpretation of the so-called suffering servant song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is that it is a prophecy referring to the nation of Israel, not the Messiah. As such, it is sometimes suggested that Christians invented the idea that this is a Messianic prophecy. What evidence is th...

history prophecy judaism isaiah suffering-servant

AJ Henderson

5:31 PM

@rhetorician we're drifting quite a bit away from what the OP was asking and comments aren't really intended for discussion. If you'd like to chat more generally about the topic, I'd be more than happy to do so here

Lee Woofenden

@El'endiaStarman I like to answer a question thoroughly. And Swedenborg's position on many of these questions is so different from the mainstream of Christianity that it requires some background and detail to adequately answer the question.

AJ Henderson

but in short, I wouldn't make any claim that I think the theory I outlined is provable or even necessarily correct, only that as far as I can tell it is completely consistent with scripture and would fit with a literal scriptural interpretation even for someone who believes both that humans were created via the mechanism of evolution from other animals and also believe that the Genesis account is literal.

Lee Woofenden

About that question in particular, I could have just provided the quotes, but without the Swedenborgian doctrinal and historical context, they probably wouldn't have made all that much sense as an answer to the question.

Catholicism and Protestantism, and to a somewhat lesser extent Orthodox Christianity, share many common doctrinal bases, which are simply assumed in many answers precisely because they are common and well-acculturated in those communions. When providing a Swedenborgian answer, I generally can't assume such commonalities, and must spell out the differences to put the answer in context and make it understandable to Christians and others from outside our perspective.

AJ Henderson

it is more intended to highlight that people often put too much emphasis on dogma rather than scriptural interpretation. Not that there isn't any potentially valid point to dogma, but it's also far too common for people to get too set in their particular view of scripture on points where aren't really what scripture is concerned to speak about

issues such as resolving evolution vs mechanism of creation are not of particular theological import, but failing to provide a resolution can result in people discarding things too quickly. Then the baby can easily get thrown out with the bathwater

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg I haven't spent a lot of time with the Midrash, the Talmud, and so on, but my sense is that fanciful and surprising interpretations of the text were not uncommon at all, and were considered enjoyable and thought-provoking. The text was considered to have great depths, and "discoveries" of unexpected connections and ideas in the text was not frowned upon, but engaged in enthusiastically.

AJ Henderson

5:42 PM

a lot of my more theoretical concepts are not because they are what I believe so much as that they are apologetic explanations of possible ways that things could resolve to point out that pretty much all of the "scripture is incompatible with science" sentiment is completely inaccurate

they just have failed to keep an open mind to how the two can be resolved

without compromising either

Lee Woofenden

I very much suspect that many of the "out of context" references in the New Testament, such as "He will be called a Nazarene," which is likely a reference to Samson being a Nazirite, and thus completely out of context and not what the text originally meant, would not have seemed at all out of place in first century Judaism.

AJ Henderson

btw, for anyone else curious, my comments are about the comment thread on this answer

5

A: According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God?

I hold multiple views on creation. My personal view under the assumption that human evolution occurred in a Darwinian manner descending from apes is that humanity existed in a non-image of God state (no spirit) prior to Adam and Eve. There is some Biblical support for this. Genesis 4:13 indica...

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg Part of the problem seems to be using a word, "baptism" that is overwhelmingly Christian in its meaning, usage, and connotations. May I suggest asking if there was a history in Judaism of ritual bathing, which might have provided some context and meaning in first century Judaism for the immersion practice of John the Baptist?

I have found, not surprisingly, that there is much sensitivity over at the Judaism site to Christians coming over and asking questions that, even though they are technically about Judaism, are clearly or likely meant to provide background for Christian beliefs and practices. In my experience, most Jews are not interested in providing foundations for Christian belief and practice.

And there are varying degrees of disdain and outright hostility toward Christianity among many (though certainly not all) Jews.

So even if you ask the question in the most careful way, using Jewish terminology rather than Christian terminology, you may still run afoul of the regulars there just by mentioning John the Baptist and, by extension, the Gospels. Unlike in Christianity, John the Baptist, as presented in the Gospels, is not a revered or respected figure in Judaism.

Several months ago I asked a few questions over at Judaism.SE that were about ancient Jewish tabernacle and temple practice. Even though I tried to be careful and respectful in my wording and language, I quickly fell afoul of some of the more dedicated Jewish regulars over there, and got myself into a mild quagmire trying to get an answer to my real question.

In the end, though I got some interesting incidental information, I never did get really solid answers to my questions. One user over there said he was working on an answer to the most recent (fixed up) iteration of my question, but it never materialized.

Since then, though I've had other questions I would have liked to ask on Judaism.SE, I've not done so. It appears that I was a disturbing element over there, and I have no particular desire to crash their party.

Adam Heeg

6:03 PM

@LeeWoofenden they certainly fit a stereotype I've developed from reading our scriptures. Meaning, I can imagine that the Pharisees were somewhat similar in how they acted.

Like you, I don't know if wading through their judgementalism is worth the effort. God Bless Jesus for his efforts. Amen.

Lee Woofenden

I should add that I grew up from the time I was ten in a heavily Jewish town, attended Bar Mitzvas and Bat Torahs, participated in family seders, and so on. However, it is still a distinct religion and culture, and many dedicated Jews continue to believe that their religion is the truest and best, and that Christianity is a false religion.

And given how Christians have generally treated Jews over the centuries, I can't say I blame them for their sensitivity. It's been a love-hate relationship from the start.

Adam Heeg

6:20 PM

Can't really have a discussion with people who reject historical documents that they don't like. The following statements were called unsubstantiated and likely untrue - "Baptism is not a Christian word. John the Baptist was a Jewish priest and perhaps an Essenes which was a Jewish sect. John the Baptist was also considered a Prophet by the Jewish people of his time."

While I don't know if Baptism is or isn't a "christian" word, there was no such thing as Christianity when John started Baptizing. so, the word came from something jewish.

Lee Woofenden

6:34 PM

@AdamHeeg If you're interested specifically in the origins of the word "baptism," perhaps you could ask at Biblical Hermeneutics or even English Language and Usage--though the latter may not be the right place to ask about the Greek word.

@AdamHeeg Judaism.SE is not necessarily representative of all of Judaism. Don't forget that Jesus' original disciples were all Jewish, even if they were Galileans.

Even if there are elements of Judaism today that would still fall afoul of Jesus' criticisms, that doesn't necessarily mean that all Jews fit that stereotype.

@AdamHeeg I do believe that hidden things are being revealed in our times and in our generation. However, there certainly is a basis in the Bible and in Jesus' own words to believe that there are many hidden things in the Bible and in religion and spirituality generally. For example, Jesus said:

> At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. (Matthew 11:25)

Adam Heeg

I agree that the online SE community is not representative of the whole. I actually just got an answer to my question on that site which was on topic at the least. The poster is getting chewed out by the regulars as we speak.

Lee Woofenden

See also Matthew 13:10-17, in which Jesus quotes from Isaiah in a discourse about parables and secret meanings, which some will see and others will not.

Adam Heeg

One big problem with the whole 'the holy spirit will enable some who you have to trust' is how can you tell false teachers and prophets if the meaning is unclear?

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg Jesus statement in Matthew 7:15-20 that "you will know them by their fruits" certainly provides some guidance. When I see "Christians" spouting narrow-minded bigotry, and engaging in hateful acts toward those who run afoul of their doctrines, I have a pretty good idea that they are false prophets.

Adam Heeg

6:52 PM

@LeeWoofenden easy case in the books. However, I've come across people with sites and even wikipedia entries that speak about amazing love and compassion and how they have a calling from God to be a prophet. I can't investigate it much, I'm trying to learn the Bible still, however, some people have good intentions and hearts but that doesn't mean they're right.

ironically even John the Baptist doubted Jesus was the Christ... i mean, cmon, help us out here God.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden Unfortunately, that is my impression to. There is a lot of hostility (on SE, no idea in general) about Christians wanting to understand historical Judaism. I would think the best way to to reach someone is by engaging them in their terms, but then again Judaism is not all that interested in proselytizing.

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg Beyond the obvious warning signs of false prophets covered in the Gospels, there just isn't any shortcut or substitute for engaging your mind, evaluating doctrines and claims, and making a judgment on what beliefs and teachings have the ring of truth about them.

2

I do not think this often long, drawn-out process of searching the Scriptures and searching out the truth is an error or misstep on God's part. Beliefs adopted too quickly and easily are weak and brittle, and are likely to break easily when the "believer" encounters something that just doesn't fit into these quick, superficially held beliefs.

However, beliefs arrived at through doubt and searching are far deeper and more flexible, and already take into account many opposing possibilities. So such beliefs are not so fragile and easily broken. What is acquired by hard and sustained effort is stronger in the mind and heart.

Speaking of Judaism, it's a fairly common practice to turn away potential new converts three times before even taking them seriously. This is a protection against people wanting to join for superficial reasons, with shallow motives. Only those who are persistent enough to keep coming back will be given the time of day.

ThaddeusB

7:10 PM

@LeeWoofenden Indeed, "As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away"

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB Judaism is a culture and a clan/nation as much as it is a religion. It is to be passed on from parents to children. Bringing non-Jews into the faith is not prohibited, but neither is it seen as part of the natural flow of the religion, just as many racial, tribal, and racially-linked national groups don't think much of others becoming part of their group. Some of them actively resist "outsiders" trying to be one of them.

@ThaddeusB Exactly!

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden Yep.

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg Speaking for myself, I grew up immersed in Swedenborgian beliefs and Bible interpretations. So in a sense it was "easy" for me to believe. However, when I was young I still had some nervousness that perhaps these beliefs were wrong, and maybe the Bible really did mean the things that the Protestants and Catholics said it did.

So I spent much time in my 20s and 30s "searching the scriptures" and seeing if those doctrines were really in there. And the more I looked, and the more I engaged primarily with the more fundamentalist end of Protestantism, the more I realized that many of the fundamental doctrines of both Protestantism and Catholicism simply are not stated in the Bible.

Over time, as I've continued to engage with traditional Christians and read all the Bible passages they quote in support of their doctrines, my confidence has only grown that Swedenborg was write, that his doctrines are solidly founded on the Bible, and that traditional Christianity has departed very far not only from the spirit of the Bible but from the original meaning of the Bible text that they quote in support of their doctrines.

For me, this has been a decades-long process of engaging with those of other beliefs, reading their materials, reading the Bible passages they quote in their wider context in the Bible, and searching out a better understanding of what those Bible passages meant in their original historical and cultural context, and what is the spirit behind those meanings.

So when I was young, I reflexively disagreed with most of the fundamentals of Catholic and Protestant doctrine because that's what I'd been taught from birth. But today I disagree with them because I see clearly that they are not based on what the Bible actually says, and in many cases are in direct conflict with plain statements in the Bible.

And beyond that, I look at what those doctrines have led to in the attitudes and practices in those churches as traditionally practiced, and Jesus' statement that "you will know them by their fruits" has come into effect.

Such doctrines as the Trinity of Persons, Original Sin, and in Protestantism faith alone, penal substitution, and so on are not only not stated in the Bible, but they have, as I see it, led to a destruction of the religion of Jesus Christ, which was based above all on love for God and love for the neighbor, including love for enemies.

The history of Catholicism and Protestantism is rife with the opposites of those fundamental teachings of Jesus. And even today, those who cling most closely to these doctrines also tend to be the ones most intolerant of people of other faiths and religions, and most likely to consign to hell people of other churches and faiths who, in all practical reality, practice Jesus' teachings of love for God and the neighbor far more fully than those faux "Christians" do.

When Jesus articulated what distinguished his followers from others, he did not talk about dogmas and articles of faith. He said, instead:

> I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35, italics added)

I don't think Jesus meant loving only those who were part of their group. I think he meant love for all, including enemies, just as he articulated elsewhere. I believe that traditional Christianity has heavily failed when it comes to what Jesus Christ himself taught would distinguish his followers from people who weren't his followers.

Of course, there are many people who belong to traditional Christian churches who are good, loving people, and true Christians. But in my experience, the more "Christians" cling to the false dogmas of traditional Christianity, and insist upon them as essentials of Christianity, the less they live by what Jesus Christ himself taught about what makes a person a Christian.

So that, to me, adds to the lack of Biblical basis for those dogmas to assure me that those dogmas are false, and those who taught them were not led by the Holy Spirit to arrive at those doctrines, but rather were driven by human political, financial, and personal factors to invent doctrines not taught in the Bible.

ThaddeusB

7:33 PM

@LeeWoofenden I really doubt the doctrine of the Trinity has led to any bad behavior, nor can I imagine how even a bad misunderstanding of it could influence the way one lives. (Nor do I find the Swendenborg version very different.) When "traditional Christians" have behaved poorly, it was not because of that doctrine.

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg My suggestion for you, then, is to continue with your search, evaluate teachings and doctrines you come across by comparing them to what the Bible itself says, continue to improve your understanding of the original meaning of the Bible's statements, and look at how particular doctrines lead people to live and love (or not) both their friends and their enemies.

Only through such sustained study and evaluation will you come to an understanding that is deep, solid, and satisfying both for your mind and your heart.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden that's the basis of what I say when asked what my thoughts are on a lot of charismatic Christianity. I absolutely believe that God could do the things they describe, but I don't trust people as far as I can throw them. I depend on what is revealed to me and try my best to keep an open mind, but I need evidence to believe people

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB The doctrine of the Trinity arose from a power struggle within third and fourth century Christianity. And it was used to anathematize and expel from the church all who did not subscribe to it. Anathemas were commonly attached to the various formations and counter-formulations. The Trinity was dirty and corrupt in its origins, and it remains a highly destructive doctrinal force in the church.

Adam Heeg

@LeeWoofenden that is a lot of meat for today. I appreciate your input and wisdom.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden in fairness, many of the protestants you will find outside of areas where it is the cultural norm to be Christian actually would agree with you in doubting the religion of many in those areas. You couldn't pay me enough to move to the bible belt

Lee Woofenden

7:44 PM

@AJHenderson Experiences of healings, the presence of the Spirit, and so on, are really personal, and can't be transferred to others. While they may add to the personal faith of those who experience them, and to the faith of their family, friends, and fellow church members, they don't provide a general basis for faith. That's the job of the Bible, in my view, and of teaching based upon the Bible.

AJ Henderson

and I'd go so far to agree that love of God first and love of others second is really the core even for main line protestantism

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden I'm sorry but that is nonsense. You say to judge the doctrine by the fruits the Trinity belief produces in believers and you cannot show it causes bad fruits to be produced in anyone. You only think it is a "destructive force" because you (slightly) disagree with it.

If the Swendborgian movement was large enough, there would have been a fight between its version of the Trinity and the mainstream one too. If such happened and your idea won out, surely you would not say it was the destructive political doctrine, even though it would be your version then causing division.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden that I can also agree with

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden (Ugh, bad editing... What I meant was:) I'm sorry but that is nonsense. You say to judge the doctrine by the fruits it produces in believers and you cannot show The Trinity causes bad fruits to be produced in anyone. You only think it is a "destructive force" because you (slightly) disagree with it.

AJ Henderson

@ThaddeusB this I also agree with. Unless you can show a link between a particular doctrine and the bad fruit and can't show me people who follow the doctrine and produce good fruit, then it doesn't really hold water

if it's a key bad doctrine, then there shouldn't be people producing good fruit from following it

unless it is an inconsequential error

of which there are many

ThaddeusB

7:52 PM

@AJHenderson Yes, very much agreed. I think most disagreements are on very minor points - logically someone is right, but it doesn't actually make any difference to what Christianity is.

AJ Henderson

I would interestingly not that it is my personal observation that the strongest Christians I know universally do first and foremost focus on love of God and love of others over any doctrinal distinctions. Some of them can be of key importance to understand our nature and our place in relationship to God, but at it's core, recognition of our fallen nature coupled with looking to God to fix us and bring us back in line with him is the core

Adam Heeg

we all produce bad fruit - perhaps on a daily basis even. So, besides jesus it will be hard to find any pure fruit we can't point a finger at in some way.

AJ Henderson

@AdamHeeg you can look at what people claim is good fruit though

I'm not perfect, but I don't glory in my failings

that can't be said for a large portion of "Christianity" in the US

or in general for that matter I suppose, though I think it is generally the worst when Christianity is the mainline religion of an area

ala adam4d.com/death-of-christianity

@LeeWoofenden and of personal searching and study and discernment, yes

Adam Heeg

I like our society - we built a great society based on Christian values, and a repentant heart goes a LONG way here - that isn't true of most other societies.

AJ Henderson

yes, but we are also poisoned by a lot of people who maintain they are Christians to non-believers, yet act in a way counter to that because it is convenient to associate with Christianity

I think that's a large portion of why the church is actually generally considered much healthier in areas where it is not popular

ThaddeusB

7:59 PM

@AJHenderson Lee will disagree, but I very much think the "road is narrow" and most "Christians" are not really so - and no I am not referring to the church they attend or even the doctrines they adhere to. Real Christianity involves a much deeper "commitment" than most people are interested in giving.

AJ Henderson

when there is an incentive for those who don't actually believe to self-filter themselves out, that's beneficial

@LeeWoofenden - out of curiosity, what is the point of the old testament sacrificial system of atonement. If it was in error, why did Christ not speak against it. I could potentially see arguments on the trinity, but the idea that we are judged based on our works and that the cross was not substitutionary is a very hard sell that I can't see any way of interpreting

Lee Woofenden

8:45 PM

@AdamHeeg Sure, nobody's perfect. But there's a big difference between an apple with a blemish on it and an apple that's rotten to the core. Over time, if not immediately, it becomes clear enough what is driving a person, and whether he or she is bearing good or bad fruit.

@AJHenderson I'd say that these days there are a lot fewer people going to church for social, financial, and superficial reasons than there were fifty or a hundred years ago. A much higher percentage of people who are in church are there because they personally want to be there than was the case in the past.

When I was a pastor, although my congregation was small, I at least knew that every person in the pews was there to gain some spiritual insight and to strengthen their faith. Those who didn't want that simply didn't come, because there was no longer any significant social pressure for them to be there.

@AJHenderson On the other hand, if people who aren't sincere Christians attend church, it's not necessarily a total loss. Perhaps something that the preacher says will hit home, or eventually filter through, and they will have a conversion experience. I certainly don't believe in excluding those who are there for superficial or self-serving reasons, as long as they don't cause disturbance and dissension in the church.

@AJHenderson If Jesus is correct (and I believe he is), then loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves is the core of all genuine religion. Those who practice it are part of God's kingdom no matter what faulty or outright false doctrines they may adhere to intellectually.

I would say that most Protestants, and most Christians in general, don't actually pay a lot of attention to the doctrines of their church, true or false. They instinctively, and from reading the Bible, recognize that loving God and loving the neighbor is what real Christianity is all about, and they live (or don't) that way, regardless of what the preacher tells them they're supposed to believe.

Really, I think most laypeople in the heavily doctrinal and dogmatic Protestant churches have a better grasp on what Christianity truly is than their pastors do.

Catholicism, meanwhile, despite all its doctrinal errors, has always taught that it is necessary to live a good life if you want to go to heaven. And rank and file Catholics believe that--and if they're good Catholics, practice it--regardless of their church's doctrinal formulations.

Does Elisha speak?

0

Q: This question has no direct relationship to Christianity

According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God? This is a philosophical question. It could be applied to any religion, not just Christianity. It should be closed.

discussion vote-to-close

Lee Woofenden

9:01 PM

@ThaddeusB I disagree fundamentally with the doctrine of God as a Trinity of Persons. I consider it to be the first major doctrinal error in the Christian church, and the foundation of all of the later errors that invaded and destroyed the church doctrinally, and vitiated its life.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden I understand that, but disagreeing with it does not mean it produces "bad fruit." I was specifically challenging the assertion that you can tell it is a false doctrine because it has produced bad fruit.

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB And I would say that the sordid history of the Catholic Church at least from the time of Constantine onward is demonstration enough that this doctrine, and the (political) reasons it was formulated and adopted, bore bad fruit. Then, when Protestant came along, Christians warred against and killed other Christians, all over heresies and dogmas that had no place in the Bible in the first place.

I simply don't see any resemblance between the Christianity that Christ taught and the "Christianity" that existed in Europe through most of the history of Christianity from the third and fourth centuries onward.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden You have no evidence that the faults of the Catholic Church came from the Trinity doctrine, or even that they started in 300. The obvious abuses are several hundred years later - you only say they started in 300 b/c you want to link them to the doctrine.

Lee Woofenden

The final section of the 325 AD version of the Nicene Creed demonstrates the spirit in which it was adopted:

> But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden And that was neither the first or the last time the church condemned (perceived) heretics. I fail to see your point.

Lee Woofenden

9:08 PM

The bishops who gathered to formulate that creed under Constantine's aegis were of a mindset to condemn those who didn't share their particular doctrinal belief. That, to me, speaks volumes about the bad seed of the doctrine of the Trinity that led to the bad fruit of an imperious and destructive church that plunged Europe into a long dark age that only truly began to lighten when the Age of Enlightenment began breaking the power of the church.

I do not see Jesus anywhere in the Gospels saying, "And those who fail to accept your formulations of doctrine you are to condemn and anathematize." Yes, he said if they don't accept the apostles, then the apostles should shake the dust off their feet. But the apostles were not to attack, kill, and burn them for heresy.

Even Jesus' statement that it would be worse for them in the day of judgment than for Sodom and Gomorrah left the judgment to God, and did not instruct the disciples to persecute those who didn't accept their teaching.

At the time of Constantine, the Catholic Church began its transition from a spiritual power to a worldly, political power. The doctrine of the Trinity was the start of the doctrinal corruption of the church, but it was the desire for political power on the part of the people who formulated those doctrines that led to the corruption and destruction of Christianity.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." But the Catholic Church built a worldly kingdom in which kings bowed down to popes, and popes were the de facto political rulers of Europe.

This was diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And the corruption in the Catholic Church led directly to the Protestant Reformation, and ultimately to the breaking of the political power of the Catholic Church.

The Nicene Creed itself was formulated at the call of, and under the watchful eye of, an emperor of the Roman Empire. It was done for political reasons: Constantine wanted a doctrine under which he could establish and consolidate his rule. He saw that Europe was heading toward Christianity, and he wanted to hitch his political cart to that horse to enhance his own reign and power.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden The pope had already claimed authority over the church before the Trinity doctrine was approved, so actually it started before 300 and thus it must be some other doctrine that "caused" this transition.

Lee Woofenden

So it was a corrupt doctrine from the beginning, originating as it did in political rather than spiritual considerations, and it formed the basis of a corrupted church that focused more and more on worldly power and wealth, and used the church and its dogmas as weapons to achieve power and wealth, and crush all who stood in the way of those worldly aspirations.

@ThaddeusB Yes, the corruption had already begun before the Nicene Creed was formulated. The Nicene Creed was itself the fruit of corruption and heresy already seeping into Christianity. Christian leaders of the third century (and perhaps even earlier) had already dug the hole for the foundation of the corrupt edifice. The Nicene Creed was the foundation itself, which was placed in the hole that had been dug by those who came before it.

Don't forget that the Nicene Creed was formulated to combat another heresy: Arianism. It was born in conflict. It itself was heresy, but it became the dominant heresy, winning out over all the other conflicting doctrines being hatched by various Christian leaders. And since that particular heresy won (after an extended battle), it became the basis for all orthodoxy after that.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden You have no evidence the bishops were not motivated by spiritual concerns. That is simply your opinion of their motives. I can just as easily assert the council was the high point in the church history as long as we are just expressing opinions without any evidence.

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB But the subsequent history of the church shows what was going on, by the principle that Jesus himself stated: "You will know them by their fruits." Can you honestly say that the Catholicism that developed from the fourth century onward was a shining example of the type of Christian belief and practice taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ?

ThaddeusB

You believe it was the Trinity doctrine that caused the problems because you don't like the doctrine. I would say it was simply the seizing of power, which happened gradually over time, and not any doctrinal belief.

AJ Henderson

9:23 PM

@LeeWoofenden right, certainly. The problem is really only when someone says "I am a Christian" and behaves counter to that

and behaves counter to that implying that they are willfully going counter to it, not simply that they mess up

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden I can't honestly say ANY church represents "a shining example" of Christianity. The churches of Paul's day already had problems following actual Christianity, as demonstrated by the need for corrective letters

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB "Because you don't like that doctrine"? No. Because I believe that doctrine is utterly false, and led to the doctrinal destruction of Christianity. Every other false, non-Biblical doctrine in Christianity, including in Protestantism, requires a Trinity of Persons. Without that doctrine, faith alone, penal substitution, and so on, fall to the ground.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden possibly. There are a couple of additional doctrines that I think might be pretty key, though I think that fundamentally if you have a full and honest understanding of yourself and subscribe to those two things, most of the rest does fall in to place

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden "Faith alone" does not depend on the Trinity in any way. Saying the Trinity doctrine led to "faith alone" is nonsense.

AJ Henderson

that said, I would say that anything that sources our restoration from our effort is not taking a truthful look at ourselves

Lee Woofenden

9:26 PM

@ThaddeusB Further, the doctrines of various churches and cults are commonly formulated to enhance the wealth, power, and pleasure of their leaders--the ones who do the formulating. The Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons was the result of already existing worldliness and materialism in the church, and it presided over a church that brought great death and destruction to the continent of Europe and to the surrounding areas.

AJ Henderson

so while those two points are the most key, I think there are some key derivitive things that come from them being lived out

Lee Woofenden

I don't think it's a coincidence that Islam arose in the seventh century as a counterbalance and counterforce to Christianity on its southern and eastern flanks. Christianity had already become corrupted by tritheistic doctrine (the Trinity), so it could not answer the need for a truly monotheistic religion. I also, incidentally, think that the tritheism of Christianity is a major reason that God has providentially kept Judaism in existence as a truly monotheistic faith.

To this day, that is a major, if not the major, objection Muslims and Jews have to Christianity: They view it as polytheistic due to the doctrine of the Trinity. And they are right.

@AJHenderson Yes, especially if they claim to be a Christian for their own personal, financial, or political benefit. I'm not advocating hypocrisy in the church. Just saying that the church should preach to all comers, hoping to reach those whose hearts have not yet been reached by the Gospel.

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Muslims and Jews are not going to accept any version of "Jesus is God," Trinity or not.

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB True. Christianity as Jesus taught and demonstrated it simply did not last very long. It was necessary for Jesus to come at the time he did, but in many ways the world simply wasn't yet ready for a truly Christian church. So Christianity went off the rails almost from the beginning. It barely lasted as Jesus had instituted it beyond the lifetimes of the original Apostles and those who knew them.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden So now the 4th century Trinity doctrine led to 7th century Islam, not a bad doctrine of the 7th century. Hmm. I guess this "leads to bad fruits" test is not very objective of a test if I can attribute things that happen centuries later and no clear casual link (Islam did not arise out of Christianity, of course) to a doctrine that I think is "fundamentally flawed".

AJ Henderson

9:34 PM

it's interesting that you are making a comparative religion argument when I actually think one of the strongest arguments that we aren't able to do enough good works is the fact that Christianity is the only religion to say that

no other religion that I'm aware of has ever claimed "you are hopelessly lost on your own and can't do anything to deserve it"

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden I am quite sure that Jews and Muslims would consider the Swedenborg formulation to be polytheistic (or at least very heretical) as well.

Lee Woofenden

However, what happened over the centuries of Christianity was not just some faltering and minor errors. It became an institution based on wealth and power, in which doctrine was used to feed the coffers and enhance the power of the church. What the Catholic Church did in its most corrupt centuries had little or nothing to do with salvation, and had everything to do with raking in the wealth and exercising political power over the nations of Europe.

AJ Henderson

where as religions that say "be good enough and you're ok" are a dime a dozen

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB Not if they actually read and understood it. You think we have "slight" differences about the doctrine of the Trinity. But our doctrine, as I said, is fundamentally different. We believe in one God, and in Jesus Christ as the human manifestation of that God. They are just as one as a human being is one: soul, body and actions forming one human being--and one God, in whose image humans are made.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden yeah, basically Mathew 15

Lee Woofenden

9:37 PM

I'm not saying Jews and Muslims would accept the Swedenborgian doctrine of God. They are, after all, Jews and Muslims, not Christians. However, the Swedenborgian concept of God is thoroughly monotheistic. We do not believe that Jesus Christ is a distinct being, or person, from the Father, or from the Holy Spirit.

AJ Henderson

the only people we should ostracize are those who claim to be Christian and are clearly not, if someone wants to be the worst person ever but admit they aren't Christian, they should be accepted

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden And if they "read and understand" the mainstream Trinity doctrine, they wouldn't think Christians were polytheistic either - maybe crazy for believing somethign can be 3 and 1 at the same time, but not polytheistic

AJ Henderson

and even those who are "put out" as it were are only put out from the church, not hated

Lee Woofenden

We think of Jesus Christ as simply the human presence of the Father, and the Holy Spirit as God's word and God's power flowing out into the universe and into the minds and hearts of believers. There are no separate "persons" and no three personalities who are inevitably conceived of as three gods who somehow mystically form "one God."

@ThaddeusB Yes, they would. The Athanasian Creed itself implicitly recognizes that the doctrine of the Trinity is tritheism:

> For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden This is true, but has nothing to do with doctrine. It has to do with human nature - sooner or later people were going to realize they could use the church for personal gain and do so. The same would have happened if your exact set of doctrine had been formalized as the only valid doctrine in 33 AD.

Lee Woofenden

9:41 PM

This is a tacit admission right in the creed that there are actually three Gods and Lords, but we are not allowed to say there are three Gods or three Lords, so we say that there is one instead.

The Trinity of Persons is polytheism. It simply insists that it's monotheism, and everyone who believes in it insists that it's monotheism because that's what they're required to say. But the concept in the mind of those who believe in the Trinity is of three Gods and three Lords.

AJ Henderson

@ThaddeusB interestingly, that 's also why I'm a little more open to convincing on that point. They are more or less subtle distinctions of the same thing depending on your interpretation. I'm not entirely sure that it's a critical issue as long as the understanding of Jesus as God and the fact that God's spirit is active are both present

I wouldn't personally want to risk it, but I could atleast potentially see that one as a non-issue

but salvation as a result of works is a far bigger non-starter for me

Lee Woofenden

Tell me, honestly, when you think of the Father and the Son, as Persons of God, don't you think of them as distinct beings, each with his own character and role? Don't you see them interacting with one another as one person to another? And isn't that, in essence, polytheism, no matter what words may be mouthed about their being "one in substance"?

ThaddeusB

@AJHenderson Agreed & agreed. This is why I say @Lee's doctrine is not very different. He calls is "three aspects/escences" we call it "three persons" - whatever, the main point is that Jesus was fully God.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden it really isn't

Lee Woofenden

I, on the other hand, do not think of the Father and the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, as two distinct persons, characters, or personalities. I think of the Father as being the soul of God, the Son as being the human presence of God, and the Holy Spirit as being the words and actions of God flowing out. To me, God is completely one person just as another human being is completely one person.

AJ Henderson

9:44 PM

it's more like three facets of one God

serving three distinct rolls but with one personality

atleast that's my understanding of trinitarian theology, though there is also variety within that

I would certainly not say they are 3 distinct or separable entities

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson Accepted how? Into the church? Into society? Someone who wants to be "the worst person ever," and actually acts on that, is a bad person, and will cause all sorts of pain and suffering for those around him or her. That must be dealt with. The church can't tolerate that sort of active evil in its midst, and neither can civil society.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden there is a difference between accepting and permitting to behave that way

if Hitler was in the room right now, I'd still love him

I wouldn't follow him, I'd lock him up and keep him from harming people

but if he claimed he was a Christian, I would exclude him from the church

and tell him that he is not behaving as a Christian

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB In historical reality, my historical set of doctrines was not formalized as the only valid doctrine in 33 AD. The Gospels weren't about correct doctrine. They were about good and loving life. Later, when the church became more focused on correct doctrine than on living a good and loving life as Jesus commanded, that was when the corruption of the church began.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I would actually say I do not feel that statement is inconsistent with my trinitarian view

the question is what you consider a "person" when considering the aspects of God

Lee Woofenden

To think that the Nicene Creed just appeared in a vacuum, without being affected by the political and social events taking place in third and fourth century Europe, is the height of naivete. That creed was shaped by those forces. And it is undeniable that it was the first doctrinal formulation created under the aegis of a major political power: the Roman Empire.

You can't convince me that political issues didn't have a major effect on the resulting doctrine. To think so would be to bury your head in the sand.

AJ Henderson

9:50 PM

since it is obviously an imperfect parallel

either way it is something we can't easily relate to and can't truely understand

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB It's not just that Jesus was "fully God." It's that Jesus was God.

AJ Henderson

@ThaddeusB now that said, there are trinitarians that do come down on the far extreme of seeing them more as distinct beings

and that I actually have a bit more problem with, but again, not too much as I don't think it's likely a critical distinction

beyond the understanding that Jesus is God

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson Same thing I said to @ThaddeusB: Tell me, honestly, when you think of the Father and the Son, as Persons of God, don't you think of them as distinct beings, each with his own character and role? Don't you see them interacting with one another as one person to another? And isn't that, in essence, polytheism, no matter what words may be mouthed about their being "one in substance"?

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden I would say any description of the God is necessarily incomplete. I do not think of the Father in heaven "communicating" with the Son in heaven, but when Jesus came to earth, yes I think God "limited access" to certain aspects of his being so that he could be presented in a finite package. Which yes, means he "communicated" with himself in some fashion.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I am telling you honestly that I do not think of them as distinct beings

Lee Woofenden

9:54 PM

@AJHenderson Then you do not think of them as "Persons" as defined in the doctrine of the Trinity.

AJ Henderson

I think of them as one being with a common will but the ability to think independently as well. A parallel might be to think if the cells in your body could communicate and think at a higher level

they are part of you, yet they are also distinct

but they are the same

ThaddeusB

I also believe that a part of God lives in each of us and that part in some sense "communicates" with God in Heaven. One way of describing (incompletely) in finite human terms those three things is as "persons". Another way of describing it in finite human terms is "aspects". Neither is a perfect description. Fundamentally, it is not something we can fully describe. And I don't happen to think how we chose to describe it is all that important.

AJ Henderson

the thing about trinitarian doctrine is that there is a gamut of views within it

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson "Person" is from Latin persona, whose base meaning is a mask worn by a character in a play. In fact, as originally formulated, according to the words used, the Trinity of Persons is a modalist doctrine, in that is posits the three "persons," or "masks," as three distinct appearances of the one substance, or essence of God.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden The creed was shaped primarily by the faith of the bishops, not political concerns.

AJ Henderson

9:58 PM

there are indications of Jesus talking to God though, so there is apparently the ability to have communication between the personas

even though they are unified

and one

Lee Woofenden

Swedenborg's doctrine of the "Trinity" (he still uses that word) rejects this concept entirely. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three different appearances or manifestations of God. The Father is the unknowable core of God, which never appears to any human being. The Son is the knowable and approachable human presence of God. and the Holy Spirit is God's words and actions flowing out.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I would not disagree with that statement

Lee Woofenden

So we never see the Father, except through the Son. The Father is not a "mask" or persona of God. Jesus Christ is the only mask, persona or appearance of God that we can perceive. And the Holy Spirit is what we perceive when the (knowable) Son acts from the (unknowable) Father.

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden Well yes, "was fully God" and "was God" mean the same thing. The word "fully" is used to prevent an understanding of only partially God (which I know you don't do)

AJ Henderson

the reason I still consider myself trinitarian is because you see those 3 interact with one another

not directly, but through Jesus

Lee Woofenden

10:01 PM

@AJHenderson Being able to think independently, though, is the mark of separate persons and personalities. If they are thinking separately, then they are each gods in their own right. I don't think of God as having a divided mind, but as being wholly one. Everything of the Father is the Son's, and everything of the Son is the Father's. They do not have separate thoughts, because they are one in essence and in person.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I would disagree with that

Having an independent will is what makes separate persons

though I suppose even that gets a bit tricky because of the prayer in the garden

Adam Heeg

Bible says Jesus was begotten of God - that is an offspring of the same type.

Lee Woofenden

I think of Trinitarian doctrine as modalist. And I have the same objection to it as I have to modalism, as expressed in this answer:

6

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

Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist" in contrast with "trinitarian." Obviously there are plenty of general differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that'...

modalism oneness-pentecostalism swedenborg

Adam Heeg

same type, differnt individuals

AJ Henderson

@AdamHeeg there is plenty of scripture that clearly indicates that as an over-simplification

well, atleast I would argue there is

Lee Woofenden

10:04 PM

@AJHenderson The thing about Trinitarian doctrine is that nobody really understands it. It's so confusing and contradictory that people just sort of live with it. Most who really pay attention to it do, I think, think of God as three gods--though in practice the Father and Son are easier to conceive of as distinct gods in one's mind, while the Holy Spirit is more indistinct in the mind.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I think the key is to realize it is not contradictory, but rather leaves only one way to understand it. This is similar to the notion of free-will coupled with foreknowledge

both of these "paradoxes" are not actually paradoxes, but rather extremely difficult to understand concepts which leave a very limited number of logically sound interpretations

Lee Woofenden

The thing about the Swedenborgian doctrine of a Trinity in one person of God is that it is actually very easy to understand. If you can understand how a human being can be one person while having a soul (or mind), a body, and words and actions, you can understand how God can be one person in which there is a soul (the Father) a body (the Son) and words and actions (the Holy Spirit).

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden And I don't happen to think your formulation is any clearer. As far as I'm concerned (and apparently AJ would mostly agree), you are using different words to describe the same thing or at least aspects of the same truth. Completely describing an infinite God in finite language is simply not possible.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden indeed, but it's also an incomplete picture

probably a better way to be incomplete than thinking it is 3 completely distinct individuals, but there are some subteties that are easy to miss

Lee Woofenden

@ThaddeusB When Jesus was on earth, the situation was more complicated because Jesus had both a finite human nature from his human mother and an infinite divine nature from his divine Father. However, in the course of his life on earth (according to Swedenborgian doctrine), he put off everything of the finite humanity that he had gotten from his mother, and replaced it with a divine humanity from the Father. This is the process of "glorification."

As a result of that process, he became fully one with the Father, and his humanity became fully divine, and is now the human expression of the Father, which is the divine soul.

AJ Henderson

10:08 PM

If I had to choose between thinking it was 3 completely distinct individuals in the human sense or thinking it was one individual in the human sense, I would say that 1 individual in the human sense is closer to reality

particularly given that we are, in point of fact, made in the image of God

Lee Woofenden

So the Lord (as Swedenborg calls him) as he exists now, since the Ascension, is not precisely the same being who physically walked the earth. He no longer has any finite human heredity from his human mother. He is fully one with God, and is God.

A Child of God

hello

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson Yes. That is the basic insight that enables us to understand the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in God. Those words are not intended to be taken literally, as if God had the ordinary human and physical characteristics of human fathers and sons, but rather as metaphors for deeper, divine realities.

@AChildofGod Hi

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden agreed

I believe the "image" of God that we bear is our ability to have free will as well as the way we have interaction between spirit and physical

Lee Woofenden

@AdamHeeg Jesus being "begotten of God" is also using human imagery to point to deeper, divine realities about God. Yes, there was a literal "begetting" when Mary became pregnant by the holy spirit of God. But the real "begetting" is that the soul, or core divine being of God, expresses itself in the human presence of God, which Christians identify as Jesus Christ.

AJ Henderson

10:13 PM

thus a close parallel to your description of the three aspects of God or whatever the prefered terminology was

but we're also only an image and much simpler

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson Free will vs. God's omniscience (and foreknowledge) simply isn't a problem for me. Knowing something is not the same as causing something to happen. Just because God knows what to us is the future, that does not mean God caused that future to happen to us. We still cause our future in heaven or hell by our choices. And God knows the choices we make and the results of them.

AJ Henderson

we have some similarities that make us unique creatures from animals and other living things, but we're also very much limited created beings

ThaddeusB

@LeeWoofenden That is exactly what I would say as well.

AJ Henderson

@ThaddeusB same

Lee Woofenden

I put that last in the present tense because God doesn't actually "foreknow" anything. God just knows everything from a place outside of time. So for God, there is no past, present, or future. But we humans exist in lower realms of reality in which there is past, present, and future.

ThaddeusB

10:15 PM

@AChildofGod What's up?

AJ Henderson

though it does get a bit confusing when you also add that God created us and yet it is still our will

but it still isn't actually a paradox

I need to go home soon, but what really interests me more is what your (@LeeWoofenden) view is on the source of salvation and what leads to someone going to heaven vs hell and what restores us from sin

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson I'm not claiming to fully understand God. No finite mind can truly grasp infinity, even if we can talk about infinity. My understanding of the Father is as the unknowable core of God, which is pure love united with pure wisdom. We can apply words to it, but we can never fully grasp or comprehend it because it is finite, and we are finite.

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden right, to be clear, I wasn't saying you were claiming that. Just saying that I think that it is an oversimplification that has some (small) degree of inaccuracy to it in limiting what is implied, but that's really super minor

Lee Woofenden

However, the infinity of God expresses itself as fully and accurately as it can possibly be expressed in the finite spiritual and material realms of existence which are, we believe, not created ex nihilo as in classic Catholic doctrine but rather as emanations from the being of God upon which God put limits, thus rendering them finite and therefore non-God. So the universe is an expression of the nature of God as fully as that can be achieved in created and therefore finite things.

AJ Henderson

given that we're still talking at a level that I think is closer to understanding the nature of God than a lot of people bother to get to

Lee Woofenden

10:19 PM

This means that although we can never grasp or comprehend the infinite nature of God, we can gain a more and more accurate reflection of the nature of God by understanding the nature of the spiritual and material realms that we are able to comprehend (even if still not fully).

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden I'd also agree with that I'm pretty sure

if I understood it correctly

Lee Woofenden

So I am unwilling to hide behind what I see as an excuse: that the nature of God is simply unknowable, and therefore if there are contradictions in our definition of God, we can just chalk that up to our finite limitations.

AJ Henderson

one of my big things theologically is that God a)does not hide himself and b) reveals himself through his creation

therefore observations of our world and existence must be consistent with God

A Child of God

Reply to @ThaddeusB just seeing what's going on in here. And seeing if I would get constantly get notifications from here with all the instant chatting. If I were to get notifications from this after just saying "Hi" I would be try to find out why I get notification and in the end be able to answer a question in the Stack Exchange Meta. and i am not getting notifications from here.

Lee Woofenden

When God expresses God's self in spiritual and material reality, it does not result in contradictions. So our formulations of the nature of God should not be characterized by contradictions either. It should make full sense, and be fully coherent, within the level of reality on which we are able to comprehend it.

And on that level, the fact that we humans have a soul (or spirit / mind), a body, and expression in the forms of words and actions provides a complete and coherent picture, on our spiritual/material level, of the nature of God at the divine level. That, once again, is because we humans are made in the image and likeness of God.

AJ Henderson

10:22 PM

@AChildofGod you only get @ notifications if you have recently been active in chat

ThaddeusB

@AChildofGod Its normally pretty quite here - you just happened to walk into a debate about the nature of the Trinity. :) ... you'll only get notifications when someone replies (lower right hand corner of a post) or uses @...

AJ Henderson

unless a moderator super pings you

moderators can ping you even if you haven't recently been in chat

(or even if you've never been in chat)

but normal users are limited to recent activity

Lee Woofenden

The doctrine of the Trinity of Persons violates that principle by attributing to God a whole different set of characteristics (three "persons" within one "essence") that are not part of the nature of God as reflected in human beings. And that is just one more reason why it is a false doctrine. (The main reason being that it simply is not stated in Scripture.)

AJ Henderson

@LeeWoofenden yeah, I agree fully on that

I've yet to find anything that is a contradiction I can't explain

I'm not the biggest fan of a few of my best possible explanations, so I keep looking for better, but I believe that there is an explaination

@LeeWoofenden and yes, that was what I was saying a bit earlier

I think we agree on that directly

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson I would be happy to discuss sin and salvation with you. The Swedenborgian view of those subjects does require the Trinity of Persons to be dumped, and to think of God as fully one in person and in essence. This leads to a very different view of sin, salvation, redemption, and the other Christian formulations of doctrine.

AJ Henderson

10:26 PM

@LeeWoofenden I can use that mindset for purposes of discussion

I'm very fluent in taking on other basic assumptions for purposes of understanding someone's views

if you don't, you can't fairly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the assumptions and views

I do however need to go afk for a few minutes. I'll hopefully be back on in about 15 to 30 minutes

Lee Woofenden

@AJHenderson Okay. We don't actually have to solve all of the theological riddles of the ages in one sitting. ;-)

I've got a dog here who is going to want a walk, so I'll have to go afk some time soon also.

@AJHenderson For starters, I invite you to read this article of mine: The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus. This was originally a parting sermon that I preached this spring back in Massachusetts, before moving to Wyoming. It encapsulates in a mostly non-doctrinal way my faith in Jesus as God With Us.

@AJHenderson If you want a somewhat more structured, but still easy-reading version of the Swedenborgian view of God, the Trinity, Jesus, and Redemption, here is the article for you: Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?

Adam Heeg

10:58 PM

@LeeWoofenden instead of going deeper let's move to simplicity. What do you believe is the minimum understanding of God and faith in God and actions one must take to be saying?

Saved, not saying

Does Elisha speak?

11:15 PM

0

Q: "Five Points" of Calvinism: Where is the counter evidence or supporting evidence

Recently a friend has challenged the idea that we choose to be saved. He has asserted that instead God chose who would be saved before any of us were alive. He is going on to say that faith comes from God to those that God chose (maybe "wants") and that none that has not been chosen can be saved....

discussion biblical-basis-questions

Does Elisha speak?

11:34 PM

0

Q: i'm back from banishment. looks like the Censorship Police State continues to rule here

see, i'm capable of using capital letters. when it means something.

discussion

Transcript for