On the three person Trinity at Christmastime [New Church, Open]

Fri Dec 14, 2012 | Self

[DaveMSmith]

I'd like to pose a question to the defenders of the three 'person' Trinity:

Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Now, if the Holy Spirit were a person, would this Scripture not indicate He is Jesus' Father, not Jehovah?

[Godzilla]

You are the wasteful one challenging me if I’m violating the 2d commandment. Can’t handle the answer - don’t ask the question.

The creeds were developed in a language other than english (duh) so it is appropriate to utilize those key words within the context of the creed, for our understanding. This coming from one who probably can’t read borgboy’s origional language eh?

[Godzilla]

not you - borg boy. sorry if you misunderstood.

[DaveMSmith]

I've been posting a Bible Study (three times) - pinged no one. I'm not promoting my Church nor asking anyone to change their beliefs. No one else here is posting anything similar - I'm just here to answer questions (and yes, there are others here)

It's interesting how you consider it an abuse to introduce a different idea to 'your' conservative forum. Like, having an open mind about spiritual matters is somehow a progressive ideal. I'm conservative - my voting since I first registered when I was 18 reflects that, but I have to tell you that could change in a New York second if my relationship with the Lord is threatened. I have a ministry online and here in town and I really don't need the nasty disrespect you 'conservatives' seeming love to dish out to those who don't buy in to your group think. By definition the stupid and ignorant are those that cannot or will not learn anything new. I've been called both in recent posts on this thread - funny how projection works.

First and foremost, JR has stated this forum is pro-God. My purpose is to improve reader's personal experience (conscience contact) with God as I've come to understand that. What I have to say or what's in the Bible Study may not fit with an individual's beliefs but that's okay, isn't it? I noted on the Bible Study threads that no one really discussed the content but it just degenerated to childish name calling. This week, I pulled one thing specifically and pinged one person who I had had discussed the topic on previous threads. "cultic spam" again - just like the anti-Mormon threads. When all you got is a hammer...

So, God willing, we'll have another Bible Study tomorrow, which I'll post here. Coming in February, we have a seven week Spiritual Journey program called 'The Path Of Integrity' which I plan on posting here. Nothing to buy - no donations are being solicited, no bullying just sharing the Good News.

[DaveMSmith]

You really cannot admit the definition of "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not identical with one another nor separate from one another but simply three distinct persons (personae) of one substance (una substantia)" for persona(s) does not exist other than your own mind, can you?

All of Swedenborg's works translate concisely to English. The problem is persona does not exist in the context of the Trinity in Scripture. Better leave this one where the Catholics did -- "it's a mystery"

[Godzilla]

You really cannot admit the definition of "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not identical with one another nor separate from one another but simply three distinct persons (personae) of one substance (una substantia)" for persona(s) does not exist other than your own mind, can you?

Reality doesn't exist in my mind dave.

All of Swedenborg's works translate concisely to English.

bzzzzzzt wrong dave. there is no 1:1 translation ever. Only in your mind.

The problem is persona does not exist in the context of the Trinity in Scripture.

wrong again dave, it does and an example is found in John 1:1

[DaveMSmith]

Where? Here are the results for persona* in the Vulgate Bible:

23. NA. Latin Vulgate; Gospel According to Saint Matthew [paragraph | Chapter | Book] 15 tunc abeuntes Pharisaei consilium inierunt ut caperent eum in sermone

16 et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis dicentes magister scimus quia verax es et viam Dei in veritate doces et non est tibi cura de aliquo non enim respicis personam hominum

17 dic ergo nobis quid tibi videatur licet censum dare Caesari an non

18 cognita autem Iesus nequitia eorum ait quid me temptatis hypocritae

19 ostendite mihi nomisma census at

24. NA. Latin Vulgate; Gospel According to Saint Luke [paragraph | Chapter | Book] 20 et observantes miserunt insidiatores qui se iustos simularent ut caperent eum in sermone et traderent illum principatui et potestati praesidis

21 et interrogaverunt illum dicentes magister scimus quia recte dicis et doces et non accipis personam sed in veritate viam Dei doces

22 licet nobis dare tributum Caesari an non

23 considerans autem dolum illorum dixit ad eos quid me temptatis

24 ostendite mihi denarium cuius habet

25. NA. Latin Vulgate; The Acts Of The Apostles [paragraph | Chapter | Book] 33 confestim igitur misi ad te et tu bene fecisti veniendo nunc ergo omnes nos in conspectu tuo adsumus audire omnia quaecumque tibi praecepta sunt a Domino

34 aperiens autem Petrus os dixit in veritate conperi quoniam non est personarum acceptor Deus

35 sed in omni gente qui timet eum et operatur iustitiam acceptus est illi

36 verbum misit filiis Israhel adnuntians pacem per Iesum Christum hic est omnium Dominus

[Godzilla]

and so your point is? Persona is found in a latin edition of the bible - shocking, shocking I tell you.

[DaveMSmith]

Not in John, like you said, or in context of the Trinity.

[Godzilla]

Hmmm, you can't even handle english either. Jhn 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος Jhn 1:2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν

[DaveMSmith]

1 1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

1 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
hoc erat in principio apud Deum

Nope, no persona here.

[Godzilla]

because it is greek, the exact word isn’t there. However, the principle IS here - you are just too willfully blind to see it.

[DaveMSmith]

X. THAT THE CHURCH IS FROM THE LORD AND IS WITH THOSE WHO APPROACH HIM AND LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS COMMANDMENTS. It is not denied at this day that the Church is the Lord's, and, being the Lord's, that it is from the Lord. That it is with those who approach Him, is because in the Christian world His Church is from the Word, and the Word is from Him, being from Him in such wise that it is Himself. In the Word is Divine Truth united with Divine Good, and this also is the Lord. Nothing else is meant by the Word which was with God and which was God, from which men have life and light, and which was made flesh (John 1:1-14). Furthermore, that the Church is with those who approach Him, is because it is with those who believe in Him; and the belief that He is God, the Savior and Redeemer, Jehovah our Justice, the Door by which to enter into the sheepfold--that is, into the Church--the Way the Truth and the Life, that no one comes to the Father but by Him, that the Father and He are one, and much else which He Himself teaches, this belief, I say, is possible to no one except from Him. That it is not possible unless He is approached, is because He is the God of heaven and earth, as He also teaches. Who else is to be approached? and who else can be approached? That He is with those who live according to His commandments, is because with others there is no conjunction; for He says: He that hath my commandments, and doeth them, he it is that loveth me, and I will love him and will make my abode with him. But he that loveth me not keepeth not my commandment. John 14:21-4. Love is conjunction; and conjunction with the Lord is the Church. ~ Married Love 129

[DaveMSmith]

You are mis-interpreting Scripture. I am not “willfully blind” - that would be mind reading on your part. My last post describes what those verses truly mean. You can accept the explanation, or not.

[Godzilla]

THAT THE CHURCH IS FROM THE LORD AND IS WITH THOSE WHO APPROACH HIM AND LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS COMMANDMENTS. It is not denied at this day that the Church is the Lord's, and, being the Lord's, that it is from the Lord. That it is with those who approach Him, is because in the Christian world His Church is from the Word, and the Word is from Him, being from Him in such wise that it is Himself. In the Word is Divine Truth united with Divine Good, and this also is the Lord. Nothing else is meant by the Word which was with God and which was God, from which men have life and light, and which was made flesh (John 1:1-14).

That's what happens when you diverge from the word and rely upon borg mysticism. Superimposing such a bogus interpretation is laughable. Ignores that the Word became flesh - Jesus. Ignores the 'persona' (Jesus) existed as a persona ("with God") while sharing the same essence ("was God")

It takes no mind reading to discern this on your part. Your 'truth' doesn't exist in scripture but perhaps your own mind. But it isn't scripture truth.

[DaveMSmith]

Now it's mystics? Mystics exist in every religion on earth and you know something? I've never heard of an argument between any. Personally, I've had spiritual/mystical experiences since I was 25 and have learned a lot from what the great Catholic mystics have written. Swedenborg had all of his experiences directly with the Lord while meditating on Scripture. I really got into his Writings after I retired and I had the opportunity to apply to apply my life's experience to what he wrote. It literally saved my life.

It also takes no mind reading to see you are lacking in the love toward the neighbor department. The book of John is known as the most mystical of the Gospels (about 3.6M hits on Google). The last person I would ask to interpret John is an anti-mystic - LOL

A PDF scan of Swedenborg's Schmidt Latin Bible is available online with handwritten notes. I'd post the link but fear you'll profane it.

[Godzilla]

It also takes no mind reading to see you are lacking in the love toward the neighbor department.

Jesus no where said we were to love false teaching.

The last person I would ask to interpret John is an anti-mystic - LOL

The last person I would ask to interpret John is someone who has no grasp of the contents of John.

A PDF scan of Swedenborg's Schmidt Latin Bible is available online with handwritten notes. I'd post the link but fear you'll profane it.

No, his notes most likely have already profaned it.

[daniel1212]

It's interesting how you consider it an abuse to introduce a different idea to 'your' conservative forum.

It is not the idea that it is new, but the radical cultic basis for his conclusions, as an esoteric eltist who imagined himself wining debates with men such as the apostle Paul, and who rejects half the Bible, and you come here hosting "Bible" studies. And in so doing i see you insidiously promoting a false product. Free advertising. Thus it was exposed for what it was., even if you defend it.

I noted on the Bible Study threads that no one really discussed the content but it just degenerated to childish name calling.

Actually, on you recent "study," i ended up in an extended and extensive (scholarly on my part) debate on the canon

So, God willing, we'll have another Bible Study tomorrow, which I'll post here. Coming in February, we have a seven week Spiritual Journey program called 'The Path Of Integrity' which I plan on posting here.

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. " (2 Corinthians 11:4)

Some do bear it, I and some others do not. At least you warned us.

[DaveMSmith]

So, mystics are false teachers?

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. 9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. 10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; 11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; 13 distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.

Sorry, but I just don't feel it from you. Just hateful insults borderline personal attacks. Well, that may pass the RM threshold but it won't do your spirit and soul much good. The insistence on being 'right' and your 'truth' is the only truth is juvenile. It's no wonder the RF has turned into what it has and FR is not thriving.

The greatest test is how we deal with others we disagree with. I've stated I accept the Apostle's creed and can produce documented Doctrines why I reject the others. If you do not like my beliefs, that is YOUR personal problem. You took to adding all sorts of meaning to John 1:1-2 - can you cite anything on the web to back up what you are implying? Anything? It's called Doctrine - do you have any? That is vital to understand the Word.

[Jim Robinson]

If you have a problem with FR there’s a simple solution. Leave.

[DaveMSmith]

His Heavenly Doctrines are from the Lord all based on Scripture. His documented experiences in the spiritual world for 27 years are preserved as he wrote them and most interestingly, correspond with those who have had near death experiences. Just read Heaven and Hell and Eban Alexander's Proof of Heaven. That, to me, is the proof of Swedenborg - all the similarities with documented NDEs. He very well could have rested on his accomplishments but turned all of his resources to publishing his theological works in 1745. He observed and recorded, as a scientist does. If you reject Swedenborg's experience, then you probably would reject all of the Bible.

Swedenborg doesn't reject 'half the Bible' - he quotes extensively from all of it. The books that have a continuous internal meaning tell a spiritual narrative in the language of correspondence. In other books, it is more obscure or sporadic but no less inspired.

Your opinion is I am 'insidiously promoting a false product'. My response is 'deal with it, I'm not going away'