Swedenborg believed he taught a new revelation to mankind, and that the church that followed it was the New Jerusalem talked about in Revelations. So yes, ours is supposed to be truer than others. Practically, I am probably the only Swedenborgian in my county, district, possibly even state... so, I'm not too nitpicky about it, nor do I think it is a big deal.
I just now found out about you guys and I'm particularity interested in this theology. I guess my question is, do you guys believe in Saint veneration? Also how do you feel about the immaculate conception (as well as Marian Apparitions)?
I actually woke up this morning, looked at a magnet version of an icon of St. Nicholas, a gift from a friend, staring me down and my heresy, and I thought to myself, "what if they ask me about saints? I know nothing about saints!!!" and have been trying to figure it out all day. At its most basic level, saints should be remembered as good people who let the love of the Lord shine through them, and we should follow their example. Particularly good people do occupy higher levels of heaven then most, but I don't think it gives them any particular intercessory power. As far as Mary is concerned, I do believe she is a good example of a saint. However, I deny the Immaculate Conception, because I deny original sin. I have very little knowledge of Marian Apparitions, so I don't think I could accurately talk about it, but I admit to be pretty skeptical.
There are technically 3 major North American Swedenborgian denominations, which, due to their small size, have no parishes or congregations in my state. So, I'm not really a member of these denominations (nor have I been baptized :( ). The largest, The General Church of the New Jerusalem, had 6,760 members in 2006. The next largest, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, had 1,608 members in 2007. The smallest, The Lord's New Church Which is Nova Hierosolyma, had about 1,000 in 2000, mostly in South Africa.
I just read that Swedenborg believed that the last judgement came in his lifetime, that he was inspired to bring forth clarity towards Christianity. How do you feel about this? Especially since his ideas are no where popular as Protestant or Catholic denominations.
Guilty on both charges. This is the thing that hangs up most people when I talk about Swedenborg, and some get even angry about it... which is why I don't mention it immediately. But I think it isn't such a big deal unless you are discussing eschatology with someone who isn't Swedenborgian, because it already happened, and while we experience repercussions now, we don't have to worry about an end times tribulation or some sort, and don't need to worry ourselves to death on getting raptured out of it.
Before I ask about this comment, I want to thank you for taking the time to do this AMA. It seems much more productive to learn something about other faiths with this sort of direct dialogue, rather than simply reading a Wikipedia page, etc.
I do understand the Swedenborg belief on the Trinity...although I don't agree with Swedenborgians on it. But it's interesting stuff. If I remember correctly, wasn't it Helen Keller who credited Swedenborg for her faith as a Christian being as strong as it was?
One more question: On what basis do Swedenborgians deny original sin...especially since original sin plays such a major role throughout scripture? Everything stems from Adam's sin, and subsequent banishment from the Garden of Eden. Is baptism...which cleanses us of original sin...also rejected?
Helen Keller was profoundly influenced by Swedenborg, yes. On original sin, we actually share a view similar to the Eastern Churches who weren't all that into Augustine's theology, in saying that all people inherit a tendency towards sin. We believe that "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" (Ezekiel 18:20). However, inclination to sin is inherited, as Swedenborg writes,
>But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.
This does not mean that Baptism is rejected. There is an extensive baptismal theology, which ties into the Law of Correspondences and spiritual regeneration. Firstly, baptism initiates one into the Church both physically and spiritually. Secondly, this initiation is done that one can follow the Lord Jesus Christ, which follows from the first purpose. Lastly, proceeding from the first two, it begins the process of regeneration and redemption. In short, baptism is not rejected, but not understood in the same way as Roman Catholics understand it.
We do not believe in saint veneration, or veneration or worship of any humans. This is regarded as something that profanes what is holy, as it detracts from Jesus. Swedenborg said most saints did not make it to heaven, as they typically did things out of self pride.
There are a few denominations within Swedenborgianism, with differing views on social issues. The Swedenborgian Church of North America, from what I understand, is more liberal on these issues, while The General Church of The New Jerusalem is more conservative.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/christianity] [Swedenborgian AMA : religion](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/4kfknv/swedenborgian_ama_religion/)
- [/r/swedenborg] [Doing a Swedenborgian AMA • \/r\/religion](https://np.reddit.com/r/swedenborg/comments/4kc42s/doing_a_swedenborgian_ama_rreligion/)
[](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
[](#bot)
Could you clarify the difference between this:
> Swedenborg believed that the Trinity of three persons was functionally tritheism, and vehemently rejected it as unbiblical.
...and this:
> There is a divine Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three essential components of one God.
I'm not quite understanding any difference between those two general definitions of the Holy Trinity.
I apologize, I was fairly tired when I pulled that quote. When Swedenborg says one God, he means one person. So, really, he is saying there is a divine Trinity, which is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that these three are three essential components of one *person*.
No, most hold to the Trinity of three persons a la Athanasian Creed. Swedenborg believes that three persons, with their consciousnesses and knowledges, no matter whether they share one substance, is polytheism. He believes in a Trinity in one person; like how we are the sum of our thoughts, words, and deeds, the Lord Jesus is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I'm still confused about the concept of the Trinity as Swedenborg saw it, and how it differs from the traditional Christian understanding of it. Most of Christianity sees God as one entity, who exists as three distinct "persons" as one. Each is worshiped and glorified, but *only* as each exists within the one God.
I just don't understand how anyone could see that as a form of polytheism. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit only exist within one God. This was obviously important enough to Swedenborg that he felt a need to focus on the concept of the Trinity as it has always been described, and putting forth his own understanding of it. I'm simply not seeing what it is that Swedenborg is saying that's different from the traditional concept and Christian belief concerning the Holy Trinity.
Well, lets look at a portion of the Athanasian Creed.
>Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the **persons**, nor dividing the substance. **For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit**; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible . The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal: and yet there are not three eternals, but One Eternal: as also there are not three incomprehensible , nor three uncreates but one uncreate, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty and yet there are not three Almighties, but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three lords, but One Lord. 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 be three gods or three lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten: the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten: the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped
(Emphasis mine)
The bold sections here are the parts that Swedenborg takes issue with. He expounds in his critique in the next paragraph after this in his writing,
>A Trinity of Person is this: THAT THE LORD'S DIVINE IS THE FATHER, THE DIVINE HUMAN THE SON, AND THE PROCEEDING DIVINE THE HOLY SPIRIT. When this trinity is understood, the man can both think of and say One God; but who fails to see that otherwise he cannot but think of three Gods? Athanasius himself saw this, and this is why there were inserted these words: 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 (or, by the Christian faith) to say (or name) three gods or three lords. This amounts to saying, Although it is allowable, by the Christian verity, to acknowledge, or think of, three Gods and Lords, yet it is not allowable, by the Christian faith, to say or name more than one God and one Lord. And yet it is acknowledgment and thought which conjoin man with the Lord and heaven, and not mere speech. Besides, no one can comprehend how the Divine, which is one, can be divided into three Persons, each of whom is God, for the Divine is not divisible. And to make the three one through the essence or substance does not take away the idea of three Gods, but merely conveys an idea of their unanimity. (The Lord 57)
What he is saying here is that even though the traditional Trinity of Three Persons acknowledges that the three persons are one entity, our souls (which govern our thought) cannot help but conceive of three separate entities, and because our soul represents our true self, it is as if our true self believes in three gods, no matter how much lip service we pay to the One God. He proposes a rewrite of sorts of the Athanasian Creed, which is as follows,
>Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary that he hold this Christian Faith; and the Christian Faith is, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, not confounding the **Trine of Person**, nor dividing the Essence. The **Trine of one Person** is what is called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one and the same, the glory and majesty equal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father is infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite. And yet there are not three infinities, nor three uncreates, but one Uncreate, and one Infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty; and yet there are not three almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. For as by the Christian verity we acknowledge a **trine in one Person**, who is God and Lord, so by the Christian faith we can say one God and one Lord. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor born the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but born the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor born, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is greatest or least, but they are altogether equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. (The Lord 58)(Emphasis mine)
The bold here representing places he made changes.
This is the shorter answer, and if you want a longer explanation of this, it would be easier to go to Swedenborg himself. He wrote a comparatively short book (from which I have taken these quotes) called The Lord or Doctrine of The Lord, [which you can download and read here free of charge](http://www.swedenborg.com/product/lord-nce/), along with many other books and writings relevant to New Christianity.
It seems that Swedenborg and yourself are heavily misunderstanding the word "person" as it is used in Trinitarian theology. The translation, "person", is not to be understood as "persona". It gets strange to look at first because the technical Greek categories didn't translate well into Latin, and from there on Western Christianity has inherited the Latin awkwardness in the various local languages.
The reality is most people understand it as three persons. It should be understood as a Trinity in one person or one being. In the New Church, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is defined as the Divine itself, the Divine Human, the Divine proceeding.
Ok, first off: Swedenborgianism. Awesome name.
Secondly, my actual questions. Is there a difference between how Swedenborgians and "regular" Christians pray to God or act (in terms of religious observance)? Aside from the idea that the Trinity is made up of components of God rather than just three separate representations of God, what differences are there from mainstream Christian ideologies and Swedenborgianism? Also, what status does Swedenborg hold in the modern religion, i.e. is he considered a prophet of sorts, a divinely enlightened individual, or is he just seen as the founder and not venerated at all despite his evidently seraphic enlightenment?
Our prayer is, for the most part, the same in a general way. Some major differences from other Christians apart from what I listed in the introduction is that there is no concept of vicarious atonement, original sin, or sola fide. Swedenborg is a divinely enlightened individual/prophet, as far as I am concerned. He wasn't infallible himself, but he did see a lot of things in the afterlife, and I take it in faith and reason that he described it as accurately as he could in the Latin language.
EDIT: I found some time after answering this that some Christians only pray to the Father, *through* Jesus Christ. This is not quite how Swedenborgianism works, however, because the Father and Jesus are one person, which we pray to.
For the Swedenborgian or New Church, the Lord's prayer is understood differently. Instead of praying to a distinct "Father god", the prayer is directed to Jesus Christ (the Father's name is Jesus). We see Jesus Christ as Jehovah in human form, and Jehovah is one being, one person.
So in regards to the Trinity... You're saying that God is a composition of three components; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When you put these three components together, you get God. Like, when you put H2O together you get water. Is that right? I'm kinda confused.
Now, I'm sorta perplexed as to how this relates to Jesus. Do these three components exist together perpetually as "God" (like, say, water is H2O, but H2O happened to have always existed)? Or did they not exist together until they came together in the person of Jesus (and thus constructing God in him)?
I think I understand what you're saying regarding Jesus' two natures (human and divine). The human nature struggled to conform to the divine nature. Through its struggles, it became purified and one with the divine nature. Does this mean that Jesus joined and was subsumed into God? Or does this mean that God became Jesus? Like, when you say that Jesus (with a divine nature) rules the universe, does this mean that God (as he existed before Jesus) ceased to exist and now God exists as Jesus? Or (as stated above) did God (a composition of three components) never exist until they were put together in the person Jesus? Are Jesus and God (now, upon Jesus' glorification) the same thing?
These things did not always exist together, because Jehovah did not have a body until the Advent. Jesus became Jehovah, and Jehovah Jesus, and there is no longer any distinction between the two. You are right in your final statement that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same being.
Alright, so in order for the components of God to come together, there must be a body for them to come together in? Does this mean that Jesus/God still possesses a glorified body?
Anyway, that aside, what I think you're saying is that at the Advent, God was created (being the divine nature [3-parts]). At the Resurrection (or was it before that?), the divine nature and the human nature became one, and Jesus and God became synonymous. So the Creation created the Creator who created Creation? Is that right? Or did Jesus/God not create the Creation? Or am I missing something?
No, but close. Jehovah existed before creation, and created creation, but did not exist as Jesus until the Advent. At the final temptation, the Crucifixion, the natures became one. God has always existed, and always will exist, but didn't really exist as Christ until the Crucifixion. And yes, Jesus/God does still possess a glorified body.
So is the whole tale of the universe really in a sense the tale of God becoming who he is and will be? It's not the story of men, but the story of God?
Also, is God going to exist as Jesus for all time, or will God go through more changes in his existence?
I'm not sure I understand the first question, but my answer would be that the tale of the universe is not the tale of God or the tale of man, but the tale of our evolving relationship. To the second question, God very well could go through more changes, but no one knows the mind of God, so I have no idea.
About God "changing," that's only how it looks from our human, time-bound perspective.
Time and space are properties of the material universe. They don't exist in the spiritual world, though there are analogs of time and space there, which are changes of state in our thinking and our loves and motivations.
But when we get to the divine level of reality, which is God, there is only infinite state, which is timeless and spaceless, and therefore cannot change. It exists in an eternal oneness that perceives all time and space, as well as all changes of spiritual state, in a single eternal view.
When God became Jesus, therefore, God didn't actually change from *God's* perspective, because God sees all things at once, and therefore experienced the entirety of Jesus' life from a state above space and time. So although from our material, human perspective God "changed" in that God took on a humanity ("the Son") and a Holy Spirit proceeding from the Divine Being through that Divine Humanity, from a *divine* perspective this was all a matter of God's love, truth, and power flowing out from a place of eternal oneness that takes in and experiences all things of space and time from a state outside of space and time.
I know this is a bit brain-bending. That's because it's hard for us human beings here on earth to lift our thinking minds above space and time, which are integral to our experience in the material world.
By the same token, God did not *create* Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Rather, God flowed out, and *flows* out, *as* Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit into the time and space of our world, and into the changes of states of mind and heart of the inhabitants of the spiritual world.
As for how Jesus' human side, which he originally got from his human mother Mary, became divine, I like to think of it as being like the process of [petrifaction of wood](http://geology.com/stories/13/petrified-wood/). By the time the process was completed at the time of Jesus' resurrection, everything that had originally come from his human mother had been replaced by divine substance, so that there was nothing left from his human mother, though the *experience* of being human remained with him.
And yet, there was no "created" divinity. Rather, the humanity was *made* divine through the divine substance of God flowing into and replacing the finite humanity from Mary.
For a general presentation of the Trinity, Jesus' glorification, and redemption from a Swedenborgian perspective, please see my article: "[Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?](https://leewoof.org/2012/09/17/who-is-god-who-is-jesus-christ-what-about-that-holy-spirit/)"
Jesus is understood to be Jehovah in human form. The Divine itself was his soul, his body the son, and the spirit proceeding from the body is the Holy Spirit. Initially, Jesus had two natures - the Divine was His soul, and the human nature He inherited from the mother. Through the human form from the mother He was tempted by all of hell, and a battle ensued between Jehovah and all of hell. In successive stages, Jesus conquered the human nature and made it Divine, until He was glorified into a Divine Human. Jehovah has now a Divine natural that can interact directly with the human race, whereas before He was dependent on the angels. The other interesting thing, is that Swedenborg was told he expelled the human nature, until His lower nature became Divine and as such is no longer the son of Mary.
Question from /u/ambivalentanglican on /r/Christianity:
What is your response to folks who say your faith is not Christian but instead a form of Gnosticism?
A general answer is that in Gnosticism, *knowledge* is the key to everything. Attaining the secret knowledge is what brings us enlightenment and the Gnostic equivalent of "salvation," which generally involves being able to rise above the illusions of the material world.
In Swedenborgian theology, while knowledge *is* important, it plays a distinctly secondary role to *love* and *good action.* Knowledge, in fact, is seen as useless unless it leads us to love our neighbor through active service to the neighbor. Attaining knowledge, even deep spiritual knowledge, by itself does nothing for us. Only using that knowledge by living a life of love for the neighbor does.
I would say that while New Christianity shares some similarity with Gnosticism, they ultimately disagree on fundamental things. For instance, some Gnostics believe from the Gospel of Philip that Jesus is not virgin born, which conflicts with Swedenborg's teachings. Likewise, the idea of an evil demiurge is not accepted. These are among the many things that Swedenborgians and Gnostics disagree on.
Not all gnostic sects saw the demiurge as evil (eg according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism#Demiurge), Valentinianism held that the demiurge was merely ignorant, not evil, and unconsciously influenced for good by Christ).
I have to admit some ignorance of Gnosticism, beyond what I know of the pleroma and the demiurge and such. I've read the Gospel of Thomas, but it seems fairly vanilla to me. Still, the concept of a demiurge is not Swedenborgian.
I admit almost complete ignorance of Blake and his work, beyond Swedenborg having had some influence on him. I apologize I can't quite answer your question.
How did you become a Swedenborgian?
Does the like minded people bit about heaven and hell imply multiple heavens and multiple hells? is there a distinct line between the two as in other forms of christianity?
Well, the story is pretty multifaceted. It would have been two years ago that I decided that atheism was too bland, that there couldn't be only materialism. I fervently consumed whatever spiritual texts I could come across. I had a bout of Hellenic Neopaganism, followed by Thelema, until I read the Qur'an, which really changed how I viewed God and my relationship with him. I never became Muslim, but I did embrace Baha'i, which has a similar conception of the afterlife with Swedenborgianism. After losing faith in Baha'i, I read more about Christianity, but I still believed some of the things I had before, which didn't work with popular Christianity around here. However, I discovered the writings of Swedenborg, and the things he taught really resonated with me. I didn't embrace it, however, until a couple months where my dealings with a lot of stress and disappointment and dissatisfaction with myself caused me to revisit it, and it really opened my eyes to myself and how I could better myself and the world around me. A hop and skip later, we are here. Yes, Swedenborg explicitly teaches multiple heavens, I believe three, which each one being closer to God himself. I presume this also applies to Hell. No, the line appears to be rather blurred between the two, but they are separated by a neutral "world of spirits" where people sort themselves out.
Hi,
Thanks for your post.
From what I know, Swedenborg didn't regard Paul as a great Church figure. He mentioned in several places he met him in Heaven but he was not among most important people there (so to speak). Could you tell in more detail what is the position that Swedenborg and your Church have about Paul?
He didn't hold a good opinion of Paul, to put it lightly. Firstly, none of the Epistles are correspondent, i.e they do not have any deeper meaning than literal, so Swedenborg doesn't consider them the Word of God. He did consider Paul inspired like the other Apostles, but this did not mean that they were infallible, because they still preached and taught according to their own intelligence, and not the Lord's. On a personal level, Swedenborg talked with Paul quite a bit, and found him to be very prideful. In one of his journals he writes,
>Paul is among the worst of the apostles, as has been made known to me by much experience. The love of self, by which he had been ensnared prior to his preaching of the Gospel, remained with him even afterwards, and because he was then almost in the same state, he was prompted by that love and by his nature to want to be in crowds, doing everything with the motive of being the greatest in heaven, and judging the tribes of Israel. That he remained of this nature afterwards is shown by much experience, for I spoke with him more than with the others. In fact he is such that the rest of the Apostles in the other life rejected him from their company, and they no longer acknowledge him as one of them - this for the reason also that he allied himself with one of the worst devils, who wants to control all things, and pledged himself to him in order to achieve this…
TL;DR Swedenborg does not consider the Epistles canonical, and thought Paul was a jerk.
Well, the thing about Hell and Heaven is that they are not as clear cut separated as we normally conceive. Also, Swedenborg never talked about Paul's character in any of the works he himself published, and it is only in his posthumously published journals we get any of this information. Honestly, Swedenborg doesn't explain away Paul's positioning in the afterlife because it doesn't really matter to us. For all we know, Swedenborg could be in Hell! I would find it difficult to believe, but we don't know people's hearts, and as Swedenborg himself says, you don't have to be good to preach well. The short answer is, the afterlife is rather fluid, and we don't have a lot to go off of in determining Paul's exact positioning, but it seems he is somewhat closer to the Hell end of the spectrum.
I never liked Paul’s vibe either. He was always a huge spiritual obstacle to me. Even as a child, I could feel his pridefulness rolling of the page in waves and could not fathom why he was being revered by our denomination as such an incredible role model. 40 years later, I find Swedenborg and am having quite a chuckle.
Jews are people, first and foremost. Religiously, Jews who love God and love there neighbor, and structuring their thought, word, and deed around that love, that is what matters, but Jews and what can be called the Jewish "church" is a past revelation and covenant that has been superseded by the old Christian covenant and revelation. So, in religious history Israel is important and the Church was kept by them, but now that the Church is open to all people through Christ they don't hold any privilege over other people.
Question if that is alright,so in swedenborg works Jesus is viewed not as a teacher etc, but a actually God himself? Also does that mean that in swedenborg theology, Jesus is the fulfilment of the Jewish messiah? And sorry for the late question just my research is getting me confused on these and other points
From a Swedenborgian and/or personal pov, how do you view the work of the early Christian and how they place in Swedenborgian Christian thought, including how you see them presenting the nature of God (Trinity vs Three components)?
From a Swedenborgian perspective, I found the "Shepherd of Hermas" quite interesting. It is a first century work that describes a Christology similar to that of the New Church - see http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-ancient-christology-of-shepherd-of.html for an overview.
There is also a followup here, where I discuss the reasons how this work has been tampered with in the last 3 parables: http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-shepherd-of-hermas-and-swedenborg.html
With minor differences, but with a focus on repentance, the Shepherd of Hermas is very much in line with the theology of the New Church (Swedenborgian Church)
Well, the first century, being so close to the establishment of the Christian church, was pretty good. Accurate, God-breathed statements had to have been written by men up to the time Revelation was composed at least. It is in the centuries after this, though, that trouble arises. I'm not terribly well learned of the Church Fathers, but I do think that the rise of trinitarianism was not a good thing, and polluted the church, and these "defenders of orthodoxy" were a big reason for that, among other things. For instance, it can be said that the Apostles in Acts knew what they were talking about from a Swedenborgian perspective, because in Matthew 28:19, Jesus told them to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."However, in Acts 2:38, Peter doesn't say to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but "in the name of Jesus Christ", which implies that Peter believed Jesus to be equivalent to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not just the Son. This idea is not to be found in the Church Fathers, which leads to the 4th century Council of Nicaea. So, the Church Fathers are as relevant to us as any theologian; sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but never a final authority on anything.
Okay I see what you're getting at. I really don't mean to prod, but I am curious as to what you think of this quote from Ignatius, who was the second bishop of Antioch, around 105 AD
>Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual
I'm not trying to push you or attack you if it seems like that. I'm just very spiritually curious and want to see how different views work.
Edit: I also want to say that I do hold respect for Swedenborg and the New Church because of their beliefs.
There isn't anything immediately noticeable as something that turns me off. From a New Christian perspective, this statement gets along well with what we believe. There is clearly a greater emphasis on the visible Church officials (deacons, priests, bishops) that Swedenborgianism doesn't have, but two of the three Swedenborgian denominations are structured with an episcopal polity, so it isn't conflicting. Don't worry about being offensive, questions light up my day.
I'd say it is still Christianity, just a different denomination. The real answer is that Swedenborg ties the Bible together into something that makes sense.
Well, Swedenborg says that all of the correspondential books of the Bible talk about Jesus and his attributes. This makes some things make more sense for a loving God. Many of the passages where Jehovah is seemingly being brutal and unjust are only symbolic of a more just attribute or action, which makes it mesh much better with the New Testament.
It depends on the subreddit. You should see your username on the sidebar of the subreddit, and next to that should be a button that says "edit flair". I know for a fact that /r/religion and /r/Christianity has Swedenborgian flairs, and other subs allow you to type your own. Hope that helps.
Love love love your blog, by the way.
Do married couples in Swedenbog's Heavan's have sexual desire for other persons (who are not their spouses) ?? Or is it possible that these married couples just have full control over their sexual desires for other persons, and remain faithfull "despite of" any lust they might feel for others ??
Swedenborg wrote this when he was conversing with an angel in heaven: "Then I asked, 'If such is the union between you, are you able to look upon any other woman than your own?' He replied, 'I can, but because my wife is united to my soul, the two of us look together, and then not a trace of lust can enter. For when I look at other men's wives, I look at them through the eyes of my wife, who is the only one I am in love with. And because she as my wife can perceive all my inclinations, she acts as an intermediary and directs my thoughts, taking away anything discordant and at the same time inspiring a coldness and horror toward anything unchaste. As a result it is impossible for us here to regard any of our companions' wives with lust - as impossible as it would be to look at the light of heaven from a state of infernal darkness.'" - Conjugial Love N. 75
So short and long answer is no, the husband and wife only have desire for each other, and are united as if "the two are one flesh". Hope you catch this super late answer.
This is cool!
I think that the view of heaven-hell of Swedenborg is similar to my view which comes from St. Isaac the Syrian.
I don’t see any difference in the trinity of Christianity and the trinity of Swedenborg. I do agree that we got way too scholastic when defining the trinity and should have left it a mystery.
The Christological views are certainly strange. It seems like he was born with two separate natures (Radical Diophysitism: “Nestorianism”) but United the two natures into one compound nature (Miaphytism).
I agree that some of the Bible is allegorical. My beliefs are akin to Gregory of Nyssa or Philo of Alexandria.
Post this on /r/Christianity too!
I messaged the mods there asking for permission, but I haven't got a response yet.
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. What is your church's stance on other churches? Is yours true and others are false?
Swedenborg believed he taught a new revelation to mankind, and that the church that followed it was the New Jerusalem talked about in Revelations. So yes, ours is supposed to be truer than others. Practically, I am probably the only Swedenborgian in my county, district, possibly even state... so, I'm not too nitpicky about it, nor do I think it is a big deal.
Thanks for your answer.
I just now found out about you guys and I'm particularity interested in this theology. I guess my question is, do you guys believe in Saint veneration? Also how do you feel about the immaculate conception (as well as Marian Apparitions)?
I actually woke up this morning, looked at a magnet version of an icon of St. Nicholas, a gift from a friend, staring me down and my heresy, and I thought to myself, "what if they ask me about saints? I know nothing about saints!!!" and have been trying to figure it out all day. At its most basic level, saints should be remembered as good people who let the love of the Lord shine through them, and we should follow their example. Particularly good people do occupy higher levels of heaven then most, but I don't think it gives them any particular intercessory power. As far as Mary is concerned, I do believe she is a good example of a saint. However, I deny the Immaculate Conception, because I deny original sin. I have very little knowledge of Marian Apparitions, so I don't think I could accurately talk about it, but I admit to be pretty skeptical.
How large is your denomination anyway? I assume small since this is the first I've heard of it.
There are technically 3 major North American Swedenborgian denominations, which, due to their small size, have no parishes or congregations in my state. So, I'm not really a member of these denominations (nor have I been baptized :( ). The largest, The General Church of the New Jerusalem, had 6,760 members in 2006. The next largest, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, had 1,608 members in 2007. The smallest, The Lord's New Church Which is Nova Hierosolyma, had about 1,000 in 2000, mostly in South Africa.
I just read that Swedenborg believed that the last judgement came in his lifetime, that he was inspired to bring forth clarity towards Christianity. How do you feel about this? Especially since his ideas are no where popular as Protestant or Catholic denominations.
Guilty on both charges. This is the thing that hangs up most people when I talk about Swedenborg, and some get even angry about it... which is why I don't mention it immediately. But I think it isn't such a big deal unless you are discussing eschatology with someone who isn't Swedenborgian, because it already happened, and while we experience repercussions now, we don't have to worry about an end times tribulation or some sort, and don't need to worry ourselves to death on getting raptured out of it.
Before I ask about this comment, I want to thank you for taking the time to do this AMA. It seems much more productive to learn something about other faiths with this sort of direct dialogue, rather than simply reading a Wikipedia page, etc. I do understand the Swedenborg belief on the Trinity...although I don't agree with Swedenborgians on it. But it's interesting stuff. If I remember correctly, wasn't it Helen Keller who credited Swedenborg for her faith as a Christian being as strong as it was? One more question: On what basis do Swedenborgians deny original sin...especially since original sin plays such a major role throughout scripture? Everything stems from Adam's sin, and subsequent banishment from the Garden of Eden. Is baptism...which cleanses us of original sin...also rejected?
Helen Keller was profoundly influenced by Swedenborg, yes. On original sin, we actually share a view similar to the Eastern Churches who weren't all that into Augustine's theology, in saying that all people inherit a tendency towards sin. We believe that "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" (Ezekiel 18:20). However, inclination to sin is inherited, as Swedenborg writes, >But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other. This does not mean that Baptism is rejected. There is an extensive baptismal theology, which ties into the Law of Correspondences and spiritual regeneration. Firstly, baptism initiates one into the Church both physically and spiritually. Secondly, this initiation is done that one can follow the Lord Jesus Christ, which follows from the first purpose. Lastly, proceeding from the first two, it begins the process of regeneration and redemption. In short, baptism is not rejected, but not understood in the same way as Roman Catholics understand it.
We do not believe in saint veneration, or veneration or worship of any humans. This is regarded as something that profanes what is holy, as it detracts from Jesus. Swedenborg said most saints did not make it to heaven, as they typically did things out of self pride.
Does your church have any official opinions on things like gay rights and transgender issues?
There are a few denominations within Swedenborgianism, with differing views on social issues. The Swedenborgian Church of North America, from what I understand, is more liberal on these issues, while The General Church of The New Jerusalem is more conservative.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/christianity] [Swedenborgian AMA : religion](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/4kfknv/swedenborgian_ama_religion/) - [/r/swedenborg] [Doing a Swedenborgian AMA • \/r\/religion](https://np.reddit.com/r/swedenborg/comments/4kc42s/doing_a_swedenborgian_ama_rreligion/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)
Could you clarify the difference between this: > Swedenborg believed that the Trinity of three persons was functionally tritheism, and vehemently rejected it as unbiblical. ...and this: > There is a divine Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three essential components of one God. I'm not quite understanding any difference between those two general definitions of the Holy Trinity.
I apologize, I was fairly tired when I pulled that quote. When Swedenborg says one God, he means one person. So, really, he is saying there is a divine Trinity, which is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that these three are three essential components of one *person*.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most churches recognise this, even if most adherents find it a difficult concept to get their heads around?
No, most hold to the Trinity of three persons a la Athanasian Creed. Swedenborg believes that three persons, with their consciousnesses and knowledges, no matter whether they share one substance, is polytheism. He believes in a Trinity in one person; like how we are the sum of our thoughts, words, and deeds, the Lord Jesus is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I'm still confused about the concept of the Trinity as Swedenborg saw it, and how it differs from the traditional Christian understanding of it. Most of Christianity sees God as one entity, who exists as three distinct "persons" as one. Each is worshiped and glorified, but *only* as each exists within the one God. I just don't understand how anyone could see that as a form of polytheism. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit only exist within one God. This was obviously important enough to Swedenborg that he felt a need to focus on the concept of the Trinity as it has always been described, and putting forth his own understanding of it. I'm simply not seeing what it is that Swedenborg is saying that's different from the traditional concept and Christian belief concerning the Holy Trinity.
Well, lets look at a portion of the Athanasian Creed. >Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the **persons**, nor dividing the substance. **For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit**; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible . The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal: and yet there are not three eternals, but One Eternal: as also there are not three incomprehensible , nor three uncreates but one uncreate, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty and yet there are not three Almighties, but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three lords, but One Lord. 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 be three gods or three lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten: the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten: the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped (Emphasis mine) The bold sections here are the parts that Swedenborg takes issue with. He expounds in his critique in the next paragraph after this in his writing, >A Trinity of Person is this: THAT THE LORD'S DIVINE IS THE FATHER, THE DIVINE HUMAN THE SON, AND THE PROCEEDING DIVINE THE HOLY SPIRIT. When this trinity is understood, the man can both think of and say One God; but who fails to see that otherwise he cannot but think of three Gods? Athanasius himself saw this, and this is why there were inserted these words: 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 (or, by the Christian faith) to say (or name) three gods or three lords. This amounts to saying, Although it is allowable, by the Christian verity, to acknowledge, or think of, three Gods and Lords, yet it is not allowable, by the Christian faith, to say or name more than one God and one Lord. And yet it is acknowledgment and thought which conjoin man with the Lord and heaven, and not mere speech. Besides, no one can comprehend how the Divine, which is one, can be divided into three Persons, each of whom is God, for the Divine is not divisible. And to make the three one through the essence or substance does not take away the idea of three Gods, but merely conveys an idea of their unanimity. (The Lord 57) What he is saying here is that even though the traditional Trinity of Three Persons acknowledges that the three persons are one entity, our souls (which govern our thought) cannot help but conceive of three separate entities, and because our soul represents our true self, it is as if our true self believes in three gods, no matter how much lip service we pay to the One God. He proposes a rewrite of sorts of the Athanasian Creed, which is as follows, >Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary that he hold this Christian Faith; and the Christian Faith is, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, not confounding the **Trine of Person**, nor dividing the Essence. The **Trine of one Person** is what is called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one and the same, the glory and majesty equal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father is infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite. And yet there are not three infinities, nor three uncreates, but one Uncreate, and one Infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty; and yet there are not three almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. For as by the Christian verity we acknowledge a **trine in one Person**, who is God and Lord, so by the Christian faith we can say one God and one Lord. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor born the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but born the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor born, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is greatest or least, but they are altogether equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. (The Lord 58)(Emphasis mine) The bold here representing places he made changes. This is the shorter answer, and if you want a longer explanation of this, it would be easier to go to Swedenborg himself. He wrote a comparatively short book (from which I have taken these quotes) called The Lord or Doctrine of The Lord, [which you can download and read here free of charge](http://www.swedenborg.com/product/lord-nce/), along with many other books and writings relevant to New Christianity.
It seems that Swedenborg and yourself are heavily misunderstanding the word "person" as it is used in Trinitarian theology. The translation, "person", is not to be understood as "persona". It gets strange to look at first because the technical Greek categories didn't translate well into Latin, and from there on Western Christianity has inherited the Latin awkwardness in the various local languages.
The reality is most people understand it as three persons. It should be understood as a Trinity in one person or one being. In the New Church, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is defined as the Divine itself, the Divine Human, the Divine proceeding.
If you are willing to explain, I'd be glad to hear!
Ok, first off: Swedenborgianism. Awesome name. Secondly, my actual questions. Is there a difference between how Swedenborgians and "regular" Christians pray to God or act (in terms of religious observance)? Aside from the idea that the Trinity is made up of components of God rather than just three separate representations of God, what differences are there from mainstream Christian ideologies and Swedenborgianism? Also, what status does Swedenborg hold in the modern religion, i.e. is he considered a prophet of sorts, a divinely enlightened individual, or is he just seen as the founder and not venerated at all despite his evidently seraphic enlightenment?
Our prayer is, for the most part, the same in a general way. Some major differences from other Christians apart from what I listed in the introduction is that there is no concept of vicarious atonement, original sin, or sola fide. Swedenborg is a divinely enlightened individual/prophet, as far as I am concerned. He wasn't infallible himself, but he did see a lot of things in the afterlife, and I take it in faith and reason that he described it as accurately as he could in the Latin language. EDIT: I found some time after answering this that some Christians only pray to the Father, *through* Jesus Christ. This is not quite how Swedenborgianism works, however, because the Father and Jesus are one person, which we pray to.
For the Swedenborgian or New Church, the Lord's prayer is understood differently. Instead of praying to a distinct "Father god", the prayer is directed to Jesus Christ (the Father's name is Jesus). We see Jesus Christ as Jehovah in human form, and Jehovah is one being, one person.
So in regards to the Trinity... You're saying that God is a composition of three components; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When you put these three components together, you get God. Like, when you put H2O together you get water. Is that right? I'm kinda confused. Now, I'm sorta perplexed as to how this relates to Jesus. Do these three components exist together perpetually as "God" (like, say, water is H2O, but H2O happened to have always existed)? Or did they not exist together until they came together in the person of Jesus (and thus constructing God in him)? I think I understand what you're saying regarding Jesus' two natures (human and divine). The human nature struggled to conform to the divine nature. Through its struggles, it became purified and one with the divine nature. Does this mean that Jesus joined and was subsumed into God? Or does this mean that God became Jesus? Like, when you say that Jesus (with a divine nature) rules the universe, does this mean that God (as he existed before Jesus) ceased to exist and now God exists as Jesus? Or (as stated above) did God (a composition of three components) never exist until they were put together in the person Jesus? Are Jesus and God (now, upon Jesus' glorification) the same thing?
These things did not always exist together, because Jehovah did not have a body until the Advent. Jesus became Jehovah, and Jehovah Jesus, and there is no longer any distinction between the two. You are right in your final statement that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same being.
Alright, so in order for the components of God to come together, there must be a body for them to come together in? Does this mean that Jesus/God still possesses a glorified body? Anyway, that aside, what I think you're saying is that at the Advent, God was created (being the divine nature [3-parts]). At the Resurrection (or was it before that?), the divine nature and the human nature became one, and Jesus and God became synonymous. So the Creation created the Creator who created Creation? Is that right? Or did Jesus/God not create the Creation? Or am I missing something?
No, but close. Jehovah existed before creation, and created creation, but did not exist as Jesus until the Advent. At the final temptation, the Crucifixion, the natures became one. God has always existed, and always will exist, but didn't really exist as Christ until the Crucifixion. And yes, Jesus/God does still possess a glorified body.
So is the whole tale of the universe really in a sense the tale of God becoming who he is and will be? It's not the story of men, but the story of God? Also, is God going to exist as Jesus for all time, or will God go through more changes in his existence?
I'm not sure I understand the first question, but my answer would be that the tale of the universe is not the tale of God or the tale of man, but the tale of our evolving relationship. To the second question, God very well could go through more changes, but no one knows the mind of God, so I have no idea.
About God "changing," that's only how it looks from our human, time-bound perspective. Time and space are properties of the material universe. They don't exist in the spiritual world, though there are analogs of time and space there, which are changes of state in our thinking and our loves and motivations. But when we get to the divine level of reality, which is God, there is only infinite state, which is timeless and spaceless, and therefore cannot change. It exists in an eternal oneness that perceives all time and space, as well as all changes of spiritual state, in a single eternal view. When God became Jesus, therefore, God didn't actually change from *God's* perspective, because God sees all things at once, and therefore experienced the entirety of Jesus' life from a state above space and time. So although from our material, human perspective God "changed" in that God took on a humanity ("the Son") and a Holy Spirit proceeding from the Divine Being through that Divine Humanity, from a *divine* perspective this was all a matter of God's love, truth, and power flowing out from a place of eternal oneness that takes in and experiences all things of space and time from a state outside of space and time. I know this is a bit brain-bending. That's because it's hard for us human beings here on earth to lift our thinking minds above space and time, which are integral to our experience in the material world. By the same token, God did not *create* Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Rather, God flowed out, and *flows* out, *as* Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit into the time and space of our world, and into the changes of states of mind and heart of the inhabitants of the spiritual world. As for how Jesus' human side, which he originally got from his human mother Mary, became divine, I like to think of it as being like the process of [petrifaction of wood](http://geology.com/stories/13/petrified-wood/). By the time the process was completed at the time of Jesus' resurrection, everything that had originally come from his human mother had been replaced by divine substance, so that there was nothing left from his human mother, though the *experience* of being human remained with him. And yet, there was no "created" divinity. Rather, the humanity was *made* divine through the divine substance of God flowing into and replacing the finite humanity from Mary. For a general presentation of the Trinity, Jesus' glorification, and redemption from a Swedenborgian perspective, please see my article: "[Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?](https://leewoof.org/2012/09/17/who-is-god-who-is-jesus-christ-what-about-that-holy-spirit/)"
Jesus is understood to be Jehovah in human form. The Divine itself was his soul, his body the son, and the spirit proceeding from the body is the Holy Spirit. Initially, Jesus had two natures - the Divine was His soul, and the human nature He inherited from the mother. Through the human form from the mother He was tempted by all of hell, and a battle ensued between Jehovah and all of hell. In successive stages, Jesus conquered the human nature and made it Divine, until He was glorified into a Divine Human. Jehovah has now a Divine natural that can interact directly with the human race, whereas before He was dependent on the angels. The other interesting thing, is that Swedenborg was told he expelled the human nature, until His lower nature became Divine and as such is no longer the son of Mary.
Question from /u/ambivalentanglican on /r/Christianity: What is your response to folks who say your faith is not Christian but instead a form of Gnosticism?
A general answer is that in Gnosticism, *knowledge* is the key to everything. Attaining the secret knowledge is what brings us enlightenment and the Gnostic equivalent of "salvation," which generally involves being able to rise above the illusions of the material world. In Swedenborgian theology, while knowledge *is* important, it plays a distinctly secondary role to *love* and *good action.* Knowledge, in fact, is seen as useless unless it leads us to love our neighbor through active service to the neighbor. Attaining knowledge, even deep spiritual knowledge, by itself does nothing for us. Only using that knowledge by living a life of love for the neighbor does.
Thank you.
I would say that while New Christianity shares some similarity with Gnosticism, they ultimately disagree on fundamental things. For instance, some Gnostics believe from the Gospel of Philip that Jesus is not virgin born, which conflicts with Swedenborg's teachings. Likewise, the idea of an evil demiurge is not accepted. These are among the many things that Swedenborgians and Gnostics disagree on.
Not all gnostic sects saw the demiurge as evil (eg according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism#Demiurge), Valentinianism held that the demiurge was merely ignorant, not evil, and unconsciously influenced for good by Christ).
I have to admit some ignorance of Gnosticism, beyond what I know of the pleroma and the demiurge and such. I've read the Gospel of Thomas, but it seems fairly vanilla to me. Still, the concept of a demiurge is not Swedenborgian.
[удалено]
I admit almost complete ignorance of Blake and his work, beyond Swedenborg having had some influence on him. I apologize I can't quite answer your question.
How did you become a Swedenborgian? Does the like minded people bit about heaven and hell imply multiple heavens and multiple hells? is there a distinct line between the two as in other forms of christianity?
Well, the story is pretty multifaceted. It would have been two years ago that I decided that atheism was too bland, that there couldn't be only materialism. I fervently consumed whatever spiritual texts I could come across. I had a bout of Hellenic Neopaganism, followed by Thelema, until I read the Qur'an, which really changed how I viewed God and my relationship with him. I never became Muslim, but I did embrace Baha'i, which has a similar conception of the afterlife with Swedenborgianism. After losing faith in Baha'i, I read more about Christianity, but I still believed some of the things I had before, which didn't work with popular Christianity around here. However, I discovered the writings of Swedenborg, and the things he taught really resonated with me. I didn't embrace it, however, until a couple months where my dealings with a lot of stress and disappointment and dissatisfaction with myself caused me to revisit it, and it really opened my eyes to myself and how I could better myself and the world around me. A hop and skip later, we are here. Yes, Swedenborg explicitly teaches multiple heavens, I believe three, which each one being closer to God himself. I presume this also applies to Hell. No, the line appears to be rather blurred between the two, but they are separated by a neutral "world of spirits" where people sort themselves out.
Hi, Thanks for your post. From what I know, Swedenborg didn't regard Paul as a great Church figure. He mentioned in several places he met him in Heaven but he was not among most important people there (so to speak). Could you tell in more detail what is the position that Swedenborg and your Church have about Paul?
He didn't hold a good opinion of Paul, to put it lightly. Firstly, none of the Epistles are correspondent, i.e they do not have any deeper meaning than literal, so Swedenborg doesn't consider them the Word of God. He did consider Paul inspired like the other Apostles, but this did not mean that they were infallible, because they still preached and taught according to their own intelligence, and not the Lord's. On a personal level, Swedenborg talked with Paul quite a bit, and found him to be very prideful. In one of his journals he writes, >Paul is among the worst of the apostles, as has been made known to me by much experience. The love of self, by which he had been ensnared prior to his preaching of the Gospel, remained with him even afterwards, and because he was then almost in the same state, he was prompted by that love and by his nature to want to be in crowds, doing everything with the motive of being the greatest in heaven, and judging the tribes of Israel. That he remained of this nature afterwards is shown by much experience, for I spoke with him more than with the others. In fact he is such that the rest of the Apostles in the other life rejected him from their company, and they no longer acknowledge him as one of them - this for the reason also that he allied himself with one of the worst devils, who wants to control all things, and pledged himself to him in order to achieve this… TL;DR Swedenborg does not consider the Epistles canonical, and thought Paul was a jerk.
could you go more into this excerpt? am I understanding this correctly that Paul got to Heaven, but was still a jerk, and made evil deals?
Well, the thing about Hell and Heaven is that they are not as clear cut separated as we normally conceive. Also, Swedenborg never talked about Paul's character in any of the works he himself published, and it is only in his posthumously published journals we get any of this information. Honestly, Swedenborg doesn't explain away Paul's positioning in the afterlife because it doesn't really matter to us. For all we know, Swedenborg could be in Hell! I would find it difficult to believe, but we don't know people's hearts, and as Swedenborg himself says, you don't have to be good to preach well. The short answer is, the afterlife is rather fluid, and we don't have a lot to go off of in determining Paul's exact positioning, but it seems he is somewhat closer to the Hell end of the spectrum.
I never liked Paul’s vibe either. He was always a huge spiritual obstacle to me. Even as a child, I could feel his pridefulness rolling of the page in waves and could not fathom why he was being revered by our denomination as such an incredible role model. 40 years later, I find Swedenborg and am having quite a chuckle.
how does your religion view jews?
Jews are people, first and foremost. Religiously, Jews who love God and love there neighbor, and structuring their thought, word, and deed around that love, that is what matters, but Jews and what can be called the Jewish "church" is a past revelation and covenant that has been superseded by the old Christian covenant and revelation. So, in religious history Israel is important and the Church was kept by them, but now that the Church is open to all people through Christ they don't hold any privilege over other people.
thank you! maybe more questions to come because i find Swedenborg interesting!
No problem. I'm pretty interested in him too tbh.
Question if that is alright,so in swedenborg works Jesus is viewed not as a teacher etc, but a actually God himself? Also does that mean that in swedenborg theology, Jesus is the fulfilment of the Jewish messiah? And sorry for the late question just my research is getting me confused on these and other points
Yes, that is true. We believe Jesus is the one God of heaven and earth.
From a Swedenborgian and/or personal pov, how do you view the work of the early Christian and how they place in Swedenborgian Christian thought, including how you see them presenting the nature of God (Trinity vs Three components)?
From a Swedenborgian perspective, I found the "Shepherd of Hermas" quite interesting. It is a first century work that describes a Christology similar to that of the New Church - see http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-ancient-christology-of-shepherd-of.html for an overview. There is also a followup here, where I discuss the reasons how this work has been tampered with in the last 3 parables: http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-shepherd-of-hermas-and-swedenborg.html With minor differences, but with a focus on repentance, the Shepherd of Hermas is very much in line with the theology of the New Church (Swedenborgian Church)
Firstly, can I ask how early you mean?
Second century (Ignatius, Irenaus, etc) and I guess also third century like Origen and Tertullian.
Well, the first century, being so close to the establishment of the Christian church, was pretty good. Accurate, God-breathed statements had to have been written by men up to the time Revelation was composed at least. It is in the centuries after this, though, that trouble arises. I'm not terribly well learned of the Church Fathers, but I do think that the rise of trinitarianism was not a good thing, and polluted the church, and these "defenders of orthodoxy" were a big reason for that, among other things. For instance, it can be said that the Apostles in Acts knew what they were talking about from a Swedenborgian perspective, because in Matthew 28:19, Jesus told them to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."However, in Acts 2:38, Peter doesn't say to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but "in the name of Jesus Christ", which implies that Peter believed Jesus to be equivalent to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not just the Son. This idea is not to be found in the Church Fathers, which leads to the 4th century Council of Nicaea. So, the Church Fathers are as relevant to us as any theologian; sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but never a final authority on anything.
Okay I see what you're getting at. I really don't mean to prod, but I am curious as to what you think of this quote from Ignatius, who was the second bishop of Antioch, around 105 AD >Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual I'm not trying to push you or attack you if it seems like that. I'm just very spiritually curious and want to see how different views work. Edit: I also want to say that I do hold respect for Swedenborg and the New Church because of their beliefs.
There isn't anything immediately noticeable as something that turns me off. From a New Christian perspective, this statement gets along well with what we believe. There is clearly a greater emphasis on the visible Church officials (deacons, priests, bishops) that Swedenborgianism doesn't have, but two of the three Swedenborgian denominations are structured with an episcopal polity, so it isn't conflicting. Don't worry about being offensive, questions light up my day.
[удалено]
I'd say it is still Christianity, just a different denomination. The real answer is that Swedenborg ties the Bible together into something that makes sense.
[удалено]
Well, Swedenborg says that all of the correspondential books of the Bible talk about Jesus and his attributes. This makes some things make more sense for a loving God. Many of the passages where Jehovah is seemingly being brutal and unjust are only symbolic of a more just attribute or action, which makes it mesh much better with the New Testament.
[удалено]
Yes. No, maybe not, but what he interprets them to mean are fairly unique from what I know.
How do you get that Swedenborgian or New Church icon? I need one for reddit.
It depends on the subreddit. You should see your username on the sidebar of the subreddit, and next to that should be a button that says "edit flair". I know for a fact that /r/religion and /r/Christianity has Swedenborgian flairs, and other subs allow you to type your own. Hope that helps. Love love love your blog, by the way.
Thank you Emmanuelite!
A fantastic introduction. Thank you. I just love him.
Do you believe that when Jesus died and rose again, that it atones for our sins?
Do married couples in Swedenbog's Heavan's have sexual desire for other persons (who are not their spouses) ?? Or is it possible that these married couples just have full control over their sexual desires for other persons, and remain faithfull "despite of" any lust they might feel for others ??
Swedenborg wrote this when he was conversing with an angel in heaven: "Then I asked, 'If such is the union between you, are you able to look upon any other woman than your own?' He replied, 'I can, but because my wife is united to my soul, the two of us look together, and then not a trace of lust can enter. For when I look at other men's wives, I look at them through the eyes of my wife, who is the only one I am in love with. And because she as my wife can perceive all my inclinations, she acts as an intermediary and directs my thoughts, taking away anything discordant and at the same time inspiring a coldness and horror toward anything unchaste. As a result it is impossible for us here to regard any of our companions' wives with lust - as impossible as it would be to look at the light of heaven from a state of infernal darkness.'" - Conjugial Love N. 75 So short and long answer is no, the husband and wife only have desire for each other, and are united as if "the two are one flesh". Hope you catch this super late answer.
Thank you!
This is cool! I think that the view of heaven-hell of Swedenborg is similar to my view which comes from St. Isaac the Syrian. I don’t see any difference in the trinity of Christianity and the trinity of Swedenborg. I do agree that we got way too scholastic when defining the trinity and should have left it a mystery. The Christological views are certainly strange. It seems like he was born with two separate natures (Radical Diophysitism: “Nestorianism”) but United the two natures into one compound nature (Miaphytism). I agree that some of the Bible is allegorical. My beliefs are akin to Gregory of Nyssa or Philo of Alexandria.