Last Judgement #28 [Invitation to the New Church]

e-mail ^ | 1758 | Emmanuel Swedenborg

[DaveMSmith]

Last Judgment 28

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT IS TO BE WHERE ALL ARE TOGETHER, AND SO IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD, NOT ON EARTH

The general belief about the Last Judgment is that the Lord accompanied by angels will appear in glory in the clouds of heaven, and He will then raise up from their graves all who have ever lived from the beginning of creation, clothe their souls with a body, and, when they have been summoned to meet, judge them, sending those who have lived good lives to everlasting life or heaven, and those who lived wicked lives to everlasting death or hell.

The churches have taken this belief from the literal sense of the Word, and there was no possibility of removing it so long as it remained unknown that everything mentioned in the Word has a spiritual sense; and this sense is the real Word, the literal sense serving as its basis or foundation. Without this kind of literal sense the Word could not have been Divine, and have served both heaven and the world as a means of instruction on how to live and what to believe, and as a means of conjunction. So if anyone knows the spiritual things corresponding to natural things in the Word, he can know that the Lord's coming in the clouds of heaven does not mean His appearance there, but His appearance in the Word. The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth. The clouds of heaven in which He is to come are the literal sense of the Word, and the glory is its spiritual sense. The angels are heaven, from which He appears, and they are also the Lord as regards Divine truths.# This makes plain the meaning of these words, namely, that when the church comes to an end the Lord will open up the spiritual sense of the Word, and thus reveal Divine truth such as it is in itself. This will be a sign that the Last Judgment is at hand.

That there is a spiritual sense within each thing and expression in the Word, and what it is may be seen in the Arcana Coelestia. This book expounds in full detail the contents of Genesis and Exodus in accordance with their spiritual sense. Some selected passages dealing with the Word and its spiritual sense may be found in the small work About the White Horse described in Revelation.

# The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth in heaven (AC 2533, 2813, 2859, 2894, 3397, 3712). The Lord is the Word because the Word comes from Him and is about Him (AC 2859). It is about nothing but the Lord, especially in its inmost sense about the glorification of His Humanity, so that the Lord Himself is contained in it (AC 1873, 9357). The Lord's coming is His presence in the Word and the revelation of this (AC 3900, 4060). A cloud in the Word means the letter of the Word, or its literal meaning (AC 4060, 4391, 5922, 6343, 6752, 8106, 8781, 9430, 10551, 10574). Glory in the Word means Divine truth such as it is in heaven and in the spiritual sense (AC 4809, 5922, 8267, 8427, 9429, 10574). Angels in the Word mean Divine truths coming from the Lord, since angels are the means by which they are received, and they do not utter them of themselves but from the Lord (AC 1925, 2821, 3039, 4085, 4295, 4402, 6280, 8192, 8301). The trumpets and horns then blown by angels mean Divine truths in heaven and revealed from heaven (AC 8815, 8823, 8915).

[SaraJohnson]

bronx2 was not banned for being rude and/or insulting.

---

It was because of his blue eyes, wasn’t it. ;0

I have always wanted to say to you that you are the best moderator I have ever seen in action. I am not strong enough to hang out with this gang hear but sometimes I read. You have the patience of Job.

[kosta50]

The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't. Funny, when claiming what was inerrant, they selected just a few books of scriptures

In a great variety too. Could you tell me which version of the Luke's Gospel (long or short) do you consider "inerrant and infallible"?

The Orthodox rejects the Nicene Creed...and the and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary

LOL! Kolo, do you "reject" the Nicene Creed "and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary"?

They embrace homosexuals telling them they're really OK, but don't do anything a priest wouldn't do

This is really getting old. How many corrupt, homosexual, Jim Joneses, money manipulating, prostitute chasing, end of the world nuts do you have in the Protestant community to pretend to have the moral high ground form which to throw mud at others?

Truth is Roman Catholics have changed the interpretation of the atonement, of faith, of grace, of judgment, and just about every other major doctrine

They did to an extent, and the Protestants followed right along, and changed it one more time, so they are twice removed. How does that make them "better"?

There really isn't anything left of Christianity in Roman Catholicism except funny hats and lots of pomp. And those weren't Christian either

Rich and opulent, money flaunting TV evangelicals aren't exactly "grass roots" apostolic successors either.

Roman Catholics pretend to based doctrine upon "improving" on the interpretation of the fathers, yet they distort and depart from the original interpretation.

You mean Paul? is there any other interpretation the Protestants know?

They have follow the heresy of Pelagius which the early church rightfully condemn yet claim they trace their roots back to Augustine.

So, does Augustine (or Paul) define Christianity?

They worship (venerate) the creature rather than the creator. They've changed the First Commandment in their text simply to avoid embarrassment at breaking it

Which creature? The "firstborn of all creation"? Well, worship and venerate is not one and the same. Kolo and others who understand koine Greek have told you that on numerous occasions, and the Church, in whose language the NT was written, steadfastly treated them as separate. I guess you know better.

It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

So, everything not Catholic is okay? last time I checked, Protestants are a lot more liberal and all-inclusive then Catholics or especially the Orthodox. Protestant "churches" have openly homosexual "married" men and openly lesbian and "married" women as "bishops", or "ordained" ministers.

They also in much larger proportion support abortion and "eye for an eye", amassing wealth and opulence, and tend to make ridiculous end of the world predictions based on their own "creature" of worship the whatever variety of the Protestant Bible they use.

Take the log out of your eye, Harley, and get some glasses.

[kosta50]

HarleyD: I've always love the smugness of Roman Catholics who really have left the true faith of the early fathers.

Mark: They're called Protestants.

LOL, how true! :)

[kosta50]

The writings were infallible BEFORE the father told us so

How do you know that? Which writings did that include?

If no interpreter is infallible, then whose interpretation is infallible? And how would you know, being fallible?

The fathers simply confirm [the writings] to be [infallible] and they tell us that by saying the scriptures were "given to us by God". Where does the Bible say which books are infallible?

Anything within the scripture is the word of God and is profitable for teaching and reproof

And that was asserted by the "infallible" mortal, by the pseudonym Paul? Because he says so? Oh wait, because he was "inspired"? Because he says so? Why do you think God would need imperfect, mortal "prophets" to communicate with his creatures?

If his truth is inscribed in their hearts, as the book claims, so that no one needs others to teach them, why do they still need writings and teachers and preachers?

[Cronos]

kosta: Kolo, do you "reject" the Nicene Creed "and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary"?

:)

One stark difference between remaining true to tradition and not is shown by the Orthodox and Oriental Churches in lands under Moslem rule. Their dogma never wavered from the true faith because they "interpreted" new things. Rather they checked if the interpretation was what had been handed down from the Apostles through Holy Tradition.

In contrast, we have Harold Camping, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians all using Sola Scriptura to come up with their own interpretations outside tradition and hence they fail...

[kosta50]

One stark difference between remaining true to tradition and not is shown by the Orthodox and Oriental Churches in lands under Moslem rule. Their dogma never wavered from the true faith because they "interpreted" new things. Rather they checked if the interpretation was what had been handed down from the Apostles through Holy Tradition.

That is the way Orthodoxy operates. If something is in doubt they go back to the earliest known orthopraxis. Eastern Churches do not depend on the 'deposit' of Faith, but rather believe that the Faith, in its entirety, was delivered once and for all. As for different traditions of how the Church goes about celebrating the Eucharist, which way to make the sign of the Cross, which hymns to include, is entirely immaterial.

In contrast, we have Harold Camping, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians all using Sola Scriptura to come up with their own interpretations outside tradition and hence they fail...

All monotheistic religions outside the Church practice sola scriptura, and that includes Judaism, Islam, Protestant varieties, JW, Mormons, etc.

Most of these depend on "sages" and smack of Gnosticism to arrive at the "truth". Protestants in particular reject the infallibility of the Church in favor of their own individual "infallibility", claimed through an esoteric and unsubstantiated belief the guidance of the "indwelling Spirit."

Either way, if everyone is fallible, who can say what is infallible?

[don-o]

Eastern Churches do not depend on the 'deposit' of Faith, but rather believe that the Faith, in its entirety, was delivered once and for all.

To me, it is a subtle, but important concept to grasp, especially in understanding the current separation of East and West. Each Orthodox Christian bears responsibility of the preservation of that faith once delivered. Now, on its face, that may sound ridiculous - don't we need "experts" for such an important job?

But, we follow St Paul's explanation of how it's done in regard to different parts of the body having unique and vital abilities and functions in the building up of the Body.

I think the role of Bishop is more vital in the East than the West. The faithful look to the Bishop and expect (demand) a lot from them. And we expect our Bishops to be reminding us always of what has always been believed, not what they think. That is why almost every communication we get from our Bishops includes both Holy Scripture and quotes from our Holy Father, both ancient and relatively recent.

As far as the Orthodox rejecting the Nicene creed and the veneration of the Theotokos - that is one of the wrongest statements ever made in the RF and that is saying something right there.

[Kolokotronis]

"LOL! Kolo, do you "reject" the Nicene Creed "and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary"?"

Reject the Nicene Creed? The one we wrote? The first one? The one the Protestants rejected in favor of the Western innovation? No. As for the "blasphemous interpretation of Mary", well if Harley means that she is Panagia or the Most Holy Theotokos or that she was assumed bodily into heaven...no, I certainly don't reject those. That she intercedes for us before the throne of heaven? No. You of course know that I pray with great gusto, as my people have since the 5th century at the latest, "Υπεραγία Θεοτόκε σώσον ημάς" or for your people for nearly as long, "Пресвятая Богородице спаси нас!" And for the unfortunates unlettered in the Liturgical mother tongues, "Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!" :)

Here's a link to a pretty chant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHnzHDmdqrQ

Harley, my friend, you of all the Protestants know us better than that.

[Cronos]

Actually, there are a few that say:

1. The OT was written only for the Jews. Ditto the Gospels, the Letter to the Hebrews, etc.
2. There are also quite a few sola scriptura types who say that God wanted to make the Jews jealous hence the incarnation or that the baptism of Gentiles was an afterthought by God (afterthought -- more attempts to an anthropometric deity)
3. And of course, the Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians etc. use sola scriptura to prove their point

[Kolokotronis]

Very good, Mr. d-o

[Cronos]

" think the role of Bishop is more vital in the East than the West. The faithful look to the Bishop and expect (demand) a lot from them. And we expect our Bishops to be reminding us always of what has always been believed, not what they think. That is why almost every communication we get from our Bishops includes both Holy Scripture and quotes from our Holy Father, both ancient and relatively recent."

now you mentioned the word "Bishop" -- expect someone from the non-orthodoxy camp to say "oh, but bishops are supposed to be married!"

[MarkBsnr]

The followers of Calvin proved themselves as enemies of Christianity

A constant and ever evolving process.

[kosta50]

To me, it is a subtle, but important concept to grasp, especially in understanding the current separation of East and West

Each Orthodox Christian bears responsibility of the preservation of that faith once delivered

Yes, Laos tou Theou (the people of God), as Kolo reminds us, are charged with the responsibility to keep their bishops in line. :)

I think the role of Bishop is more vital in the East than the West. The faithful look to the Bishop and expect (demand) a lot from them

Yes, the role of the Bishop is central; but the people can also fire them.

And we expect our Bishops to be reminding us always of what has always been believed, not what they think

It is the eastern tradition to say that the road to hell is paved with the heads of bishops. The Orthodox are too keenly aware that bishops are fallible and human and need to be held accountable.

As far as the Orthodox rejecting the Nicene creed and the veneration of the Theotokos - that is one of the wrongest statements ever made in the RF and that is saying something right there.

Without a doubt.

[kosta50]

Reject the Nicene Creed? The one we wrote? The first one? The one the Protestants rejected in favor of the Western innovation?...Υπεραγία Θεοτόκε σώσον ημάς" or for your people for nearly as long, "Пресвятая Богородице спаси нас!" And for the unfortunates unlettered in the Liturgical mother tongues, "Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!" :)

Spoken like a true Greek! We love you, Kolo. :)

[kosta50]

Actually, there are a few that say: The OT was written only for the Jews. Ditto the Gospels, the Letter to the Hebrews, etc.

< Many consider Acts and Epistles to be the "New Testament". The Gospels, having been written for the Jews they say, are considered part of the "Old Testament".

There are also quite a few sola scripture types who say that God wanted to make the Jews jealous hence the incarnation or that the baptism of Gentiles was an afterthought by God (afterthought -- more attempts to an anthropometric deity)

That is a Pauline innovation. I would be curious to see some Patristic commentaries on the subject of Paul's idea that God wanted to make Jews jealous and punished them by favoring the Gentiles (which, for a Jew St. Paul claimed to be is utterly unJewish!).

[aruanan]

That is a Pauline innovation. I would be curious to see some Patristic commentaries on the subject of Paul's idea that God wanted to make Jews jealous and punished them by favoring the Gentiles (which, for a Jew St. Paul claimed to be is utterly unJewish!).

See Paul: in Fresh Perspective by N.T. Wright to see how thoroughly Jewish Paul actually was. Don't mistake the past few hundred years or so of Pauline studies of being definitive of Paul.

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you for your support!

[Natural Law]

"The church fathers subscribed infallibility ONLY to the scriptures."

So how do you, Harley, know what Scripture means and which of the many competing interpretations are correct?

Equally, how do you infallibly know the interpretations of the Catholic Church are wrong?

Do you defer to an expert, a pastor, someone more studied than you or do you reply only on your gut feelings? No Catholic will argue that Scripture is errant or fallible, but language, culture and human reasoning is.

[kosta50]

Thanks for the link. I recommend that you also consider what Jewish Encyclopedia, and other Jewish sources have to say about Paul and his Judaism.

[Natural Law]

"The church fathers subscribed infallibility ONLY to the scriptures."

I would encourage you to actually educate yourself on the doctrines of the Church before you make anymore fallible conclusions. The Magisterium is not just a single Pope or even the current Pope. It is the entire 2000 year collective Episcopacy of the Church acting and speaking in unison. With the exception of the letters of Peter, which is a special case, there have only been two instances of a Pope issuing an infallible (ex cathedra) opinion.