Did Jesus Die to Appease an Angry God? Is Vicarious Atonement True or False?

The revelations of the New Church expose quite a few foundational errors that are taught in modern Christianity. Most people are not willing to question what they have been taught and accept it blindly, thus when an alternative understanding is given they are most likely to label it as a cult. Unfortunately, the opposite is true: many Christian Churches have become so corrupt they do not know what is true or false any more. Many are tritheistic and believe that Jesus died to appease an angry God, and Protestants keep repeating the false teaching that belief alone saves, and it does not matter what you do. The utter blindness of church theologians and pundits is shown by how far they can box in their mind by their teachings. For example, the website gotquestions.org has this to say to the question, What is Swedenborgianism? It says "is well outside of orthodox Christianity in its beliefs and can definitely be labeled as a cult."  I already addressed the "cult" issue in Was Swedenborg a Cult Leader, and is the New Church a cult? So what issues does gotquestions have?  Here they are, with some typical blather:

These writings include teachings such as: God has many names, depending on the beliefs/religion of the individual; the Holy Spirit is not God; the Trinity does not exist; Jesus Christ's death did not atone for our sin; salvation comes by practicing what you believe, whatever religion it might be; the afterlife is spiritual, but dependent on how well you lived in your physical body.
None of these teachings are compatible with biblical Christianity. The God of the Bible is the only true God (Exodus 3:13-14;Isaiah 43:10). All other gods are idols; creations of man (Exodus 20:4-5). The Holy Spirit is definitely declared to be God in the Bible (Acts 5:3-4), as is Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14) and God the Father (Philippians 1:2); the Trinity is a valid, biblical reality. The Bible is also very clear on Jesus' vicarious atonement of our sin (1 Peter 2:24;1 John 2:2), and that it is only through belief in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that salvation is possible (John 14:6;1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The after-life will be experienced in one of two places—heaven or hell—and that in a physical body (Revelation 22).
Swedenborgianism, and its churches by whatever name they might be called, are as far outside historical, biblical Christianity as a group can get. Although they might claim to base their teachings on the Bible, every teaching is tainted by heresy, confusion, and sometimes lunacy.

I am going to just skip the statement that heaven and hell will be experienced in a physical body - which Revelation 22 does NOT teach. So besides that, lets remove some typical blatant falsehoods in the above paragraph:

God has many names, depending on the beliefs/religion of the individual

This is probably got to be the most irrelevant accusation I have heard of and shows quite a bit of intolerance for other religions - as well as just plain ignorance.  Of course God has many names - even in the Bible it states by the time of Moses, they FORGOT God's name! Instead of calling him Jehovah they called him Shaddai. That does not mean they were worshiping an idol.

the Holy Spirit is not God; the Trinity does not exist

The problem with many former churches is they have no conception of God except for a tritheistic one. They have to have three beings or three persons. The Holy Spirit is simply God's spirit which flows from the body of Jesus, pure and simple. A spirit of a person is not another person. There does exist a Trinity, but it is a Trinity of soul, body and spirit in ONE PERSON, Jesus Christ. What has happened to modern Christianity actually happened long ago in ancient times, when each aspect of God was taken to be a different person - thus the origin of idolatry.

the Trinity is a valid, biblical reality

No, a trinity of three persons is only a reality that was defined in the Nicene Creed by a church council in the 4th century A.D.; later more explicitly by the Athanasian Creed of the 5th century A.D. This tritheism is completely foreign to the Bible, and has no support especially from the Old Testament. There is no statement in the New Testament that declares God is three beings or persons.

salvation comes by practicing what you believe, whatever religion it might be

Protestants churches especially have a problem with any plan of salvation outside of belief alone. The truth of the matter is God is good itself, and everyone will be judged according to the good that they did according to the truth that they knew. And in heaven, everyone will have the opportunity to learn more. Those who did good can learn better than those who were in just belief alone - in fact, those who were in belief alone were cast to hell in Matthew 25. For it is the will that survives after death more so than one's beliefs that one did not act upon. If you know the truth and do not follow it, you are much worse off than those who are in good and in no knowledge through no fault of their own. And what did Jesus say about other religions? He said this:

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side." (Mark 9:38-40)

With that out of the way, I want to concentrate on one particular point mentioned in the above paragraph: and that concerns vicarious atonement...

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?

The term "vicarious atonement" is the prevailing theory of salvation in Protestant and Catholic churches, and means that somehow sins are transferred away from us and put on Jesus on the cross. While it is a foundational belief for Protestant and Catholic churches, it is not for the older Orthodox Church - see The Older Forgotten Branch of Christianity. The New Church follows a similar doctrine to the ancient Orthodox Church - that Jesus came to overcome the power of hell and sin over humanity, thereby saving all mankind. But as theologians have written endless books on this doctrine - which became widespread only in the 11th century A.D. - they are opposed to this doctrine of the New Church and will tend to label it as a cult. But the Orthodox Church does not follow it either. Does that mean the ancient Christian church was a cult? No, of course not. This label comes from the person's own mindset of what they have been taught as the truth - anything outside of the "box of truth" is declared to be a heresy. They find it inconceivable that the church they were born in might in itself be corrupt. Most people think the religion they were born in is the "absolute truth", and never question what they have been taught.

In support of vicarious atonement, the author of gotquestions.org had actually mentioned some scripture to support it, and this bears further discussion. The relevant scripture are those that mention the word translated as "propitiation."  The word propitiation appears four times in the epistles of the apostles:

being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed (Rom. 3:24-25)
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb. 2:17)
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

So do the above quotes prove that vicarious atonement is correct? Well no, because they do not say how propitiation was effected. The word "propitiation" is a Latin word meaning to appease a god, often by sacrifice. But what is the original word translated as propitiation? It is a translation of the Greek word hilasterion (or hilasmos in 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10). But does this Greek word have the same meaning as the Latin word propitiation? Actually there is strong evidence that it does not in these contexts. The same Greek word is used to refer to the mercy-seat cover of the ark of the covenant in Hebrews 9:5, and this follows the Septuagint which uses the word hilasterion for the Hebrew word meaning covering, often translated as "atonement."  Thus hilasterion does not necessarily mean "propitiate," but can also have the meaning of "expiation" - which is just another Latin theological word meaning to remove sin. And this definition is supported by the Septuagint, which was often quoted by the apostles. I found this interesting entry on "propitiation" in Wikipedia:

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93). This view was challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p 155). Dodd's study is also criticized by David Hill in his detailed semantic study of hilasterion, in the book Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Hill claims that Dodd leaves out several Septuagint references to propitiation, and also cites apocryphal sources.

So which is correct? The Greek word actually has both meanings of propitiate (to appease an angry God) and expiate (to remove sin). In his own writings Swedenborg did not make the distinction between these two words, but with the word definitions we are using the correct definition is expiation (remove of sin), and the Bible translations which translate it that way are correct. Why is this? Not only from the Septuagint, but also from the following principles:

1. God is Love itself, and does not get angry. He only appears angry to those who are in sin.
2. If God does not get angry, he does not need to be appeased.
3. Moreover, there is no such thing as a trinity of three persons here. There is only one person, Jehovah, and Jesus is Jehovah incarnate.
4. As there is only one being or one person here, who is a Supreme Being of love, the whole idea of appeasing an angry God falls apart. Who is being appeased? No one. Because God himself became incarnate to save humanity out of love, not to appease another angry god.

The truth of the matter? Vicarious atonement is a concept born out of the idea of three gods. Because when you have three persons, a false theology has to be invented to give each person a different role to play.  The idea of propitiation is not only false, but it leads to a logical contradiction in theology: is God a God of love, or of anger? I will again quote from Wikipedia:

Thus the definition of Christian propitiation asserted by Calvin, Packer and Murray holds that within God there is a dichotomy of love and anger, but through propitiation love trumps anger, abolishing it. "'The doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath... (John Murray, The Atonement, p.15)

Does it make any sense? No it does not. It is illogical, and irrational. It only makes sense if one is tritheistic in one's concept of God. So who is promoting lunacy? Who is promoting moral apathy? Is it any wonder that people in church behave one way in church, and live a completely different life outside of it?

HOW ARE SINS REMOVED? BY REPENTANCE ONLY

Those theological pundits who would have you believe in vicarious atonement, would have you believe that by a mere lip confession of belief that all your sins are removed and transferred to Jesus on the cross. But this it not only false, it is illogical and irrational. It is not applicable to real life. Just from the fact no one can explain it should tell you it is a false concept. So how are sins removed? Through repentance:

John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3)and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47)

Removal of sin by repentance did not change. So what changed? With the coming of Jesus, his spirit can now dwell in us and remove the evil influences encouraging us to sin. But that happens only inasmuch as we repent. So that is how Jesus removes sin - by interacting with us when we repent, for he first had to do this before he can do it for us:

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. (John 17:17-19)

It is the Divine truth - symbolized by the blood of Jesus - which cleanses us from sin, for when we acknowledge falsehood and sin to turn away from it, we acknowledge it by the truth. This puts us in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. The way salvation was effected was not through some "mysterious transfer" of sin, but by Jehovah becoming incarnate in human form and fighting against hell directly, by resisting all sin and temptation in the body he inherited from Mary. As he fought in his human against sin, so he fights for us when we repent. By becoming incarnate, Jehovah in His human launched a direct attack against hell - thus the gospels relate how Jesus kept on casting out demons - the evil influences that encourage one to sin. And this is what the Orthodox Church teaches. So the New Church is not a cult, it is literally "Orthodox." So if that's the case, who is teaching falsehoods to the masses? Does God get angry? NO:

For God so loved the world... (John 3:16)

And for those who continue to teach vicarious atonement, and a trinity of three persons, it remind me of this:

Marian Apparitions of Egypt, the Orthodox Church and Emanuel Swedenborg

In the blog post Angel Appears before thousands on top of a Coptic Church I described what seems to be an angelic apparition of the virgin Mary on top of a Coptic Church which was caught on video in the morning hours of December 11, 2009, and was seen by about 3,000 people. Now that took me by surprise, but what is even more surprising is this is not the first time this has happened. The first widely reported apparition of the virgin Mary in Egypt took place in Zeitoun Egypt on April 2, 1968 and lasted for over a period of three years, and was seen by at least HALF A MILLION Egyptians - including the former leader of Egypt, President Nasser. There seems to be a parallel between that sighting of 1968 and the one in Warraq in 2009. Again the angelic manifestation appeared on top of a Coptic church, which people thought was a young woman about to commit suicide. The form of the angel seems to have been more clearly visible, who then bowed down and prayed before one of the crosses on the rooftop. Like the sighting of 2009, a man was cured of blindness, and the apparition was seen with doves. Again, skeptics, and the scientists who only observe things in the visible light spectrum in this age of materialism, will tend to deny these things and come up with natural explanations. What do they say on this? Its a "mass hallucination" or tectonic plates producing an electro-magnetic light on top of the church. Here is a short documentary on the sighting, which includes witnesses who saw Mary turn and smile at them:



There is no video, but several photographs of the apparition were taken in black and white. I can show those, but as it turns out, an apparition of the angel Mary appeared later in Edfu Egypt in 1982, again approved by the Coptic Church:

So why the Marian apparition of 1968? One theory is that the day before, some Muslims had marked the houses of Coptic Christians with a cross of blood, marking the house as one that should be attacked. This is the exact sign that was placed on the doors of the Jews to protect them from the angel of death the night of the Passover.

As I was researching this blog, just found another apparition of Mary in Assiut, Egypt, which took place in the year 2000. AGAIN, on top of a Coptic Church. AGAIN, with the appearance of a dove. According to newspaper reports, during mass, pictures showing Mary with a dove above her that were hung on the wall inside the altar began to glow, after which the light from the dove in the pictures started to flow down. Later, the lights appeared above the church as well. It is an approved apparition by the Coptic Church. Here is a video of a light descending on the cross on top of the church:



Here is another shot where an angelic form appears in a tower, you can again hear the crowds cheer when it appears:



I can easily show more Marian apparitions, but for now I have only mentioned ones that have strong support from multiple witnesses and have been approved by the Coptic Church. The only thing that compares with this were the Fatima sightings in Portugal. So why does Mary appear with a dove? It is said that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus, he saw it manifested in the form of a dove. Mary had conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit. While externally he was like any other man, his inner soul was Divinity itself. And that is why the apparition Mary was seen in one case as bowing and praying before the cross.

EMMANUEL SWEDENBORG, ANGELS, AND THE HEAVENLY REALMS

If you want to know anything and everything about angels, and why they appear in such a bright light, you can obtain information on them from Emanuel Swedenborg's visions which he recorded in Heavenly Arcana (aka Arcana Coelestia) and in summary form in Heaven and Hell. There is too much to cover in one single blog post, since his visionary experiences lasted for a period of over 25 years and he wrote volumes about it. Unlike other religious writings I cannot find any logical error in them. All of the above sightings are brief instances, with no communication: Swedenborg's encounters are much more detailed. Most of Swedenborg's visions of angels in their heavenly realm took place in his internal sight, with no visible manifestation. But in one case at least, Swedenborg does mention a bright light that manifested before his very eyes:

That I might know the nature of the light, I have many times been conducted into the abodes where good spirits and angelic spirits dwell, and have there seen not only the spirits but also the things that were there. There have also been seen infants and mothers in light of so great brightness and resplendence that there could not possibly be anything brighter.
An intense flamy light, which I was not expecting, poured down before my eyes, dazzling them greatly — not merely the sight of the eye, but the interior sight also. Presently there appeared a sort of obscurity, like a thick, cloud, in which there was as it were something earthy. And when I was wondering, it was given me to know that such is the light with the angels in heaven, in comparison with the light in the world of spirits; and that although the spirits live in light, yet still there is such a difference; and that, as does the light, so also do the intelligence and the wisdom of the angels exceed the intelligence and the wisdom of spirits; and not their intelligence and wisdom only, but also all the things that belong to intelligence and wisdom, as their speech, thought, joys, and felicities; for these correspond to the light. From this it was also evident to me, how great and of what kind are the perfections of angels as compared with men, who are in obscurity more than spirits. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 1523-24).

In his visions - a state in which Swedenborg was in in full wakefulness, he describes the light of heaven as so bright that there could not be possibly anything brighter in this world. It is a realm where there is no time and space, and while angels are unseen and for the most part not allowed to communicate directly with people, they influence us in general ways through our thoughts and emotions. There is a constant conjunction between the spiritual and material world, without which nothing living could live. Swedenborg observed a more direct link between himself and heavenly realms occurred when he was reading scripture, which also occurs to anyone who reads scripture with an open heart, even though they are unaware of it. With all of his angelic encounters, Swedenborg did not draw one single teaching or doctrine from an angel, but rather from the Lord himself while reading scripture.

EMANUEL SWEDENBORG AND THE VIRGIN MARY

So over the years of many visionary experiences, did Swedenborg ever encounter the virgin Mary? Yes, in one brief instance:

It is otherwise with the so called saints in heaven. They know nothing at all of their being so called on earth; nor have I spoken with them, lest some idea of this should enter into them. Only once Mary, the mother of the Lord, passed by, and was seen over head in white raiment; and then, stopping a little, she said that she had been the mother of the Lord and that He was indeed born of her, but that as He became God He put off all the human from her, and that therefore she now adores Him as her God, and is not willing that any one should recognize Him as her son, because in Him all is Divine. (The Final Judgment, n. 66).

Some observations here: for Mary to appear higher than Swedenborg can mean she exists in a higher realm than he was allowed to visit. The other point is, since of all the so-called saints he was only allowed to visit Mary, that could conversely mean that Mary is one of the few who is allowed to have a visible manifestation to appear before people here on earth. This does not mean that all apparitions are indicate the presence of the virgin Mary herself, it could very well be any female angel was sent to represent her and/or the church itself, to bring focus on the worship of Jesus. In the spiritual world, identities can get mixed somewhat: angels are allowed to represent other identities, as well as become symbolic manifestations. While Catholics are in error in praying to Mary, God acts in such a way where these manifestations are used to bend people back towards the true faith: it is better to bend, not break, the religion one grew up with as a child.

Another statement that Swedenborg makes, which may be puzzling to many Christians, is that she declared she is no longer the mother of the Lord. This is because Jesus gradually put off the human he received from Mary and replaced it with a Divine Human that originated from his own being. When he rose from the dead, he was completely Divine. There are two doctrines which have obscured this in the history of Christianity: the Nicene Creed, which invented a "son born from eternity", and the Chalcedonian Creed, which permanent divided Jesus into two natures, which created endless theological distinctions and debates which I will not get into here. Jesus BEGAN as both human and Divine, but in the end, the Divine absorbed and transformed the human into a Divine Human - a body that was under direct control by Jehovah, which could no longer be tempted to sin, where he could interact directly at our level without having an intermediate angel. For Catholics, this is obscured even more by the false doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. This is VERY CLEAR in the revelations that Swedenborg received concerning Mary, and his explanations also make clear why Islam is a "partially" true (not complete) revelation:

The interiors with Him were Divine, from Jehovah His Father; the exteriors were human, from Mary His mother. Hence it may be evident that with the Lord, equally as with other men, there was in His external man, in boyhood, a want of knowledge. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 1460)

From knowledge of boyhood, Jesus later proceeded to make his rational human self Divine:

The Lord, as said before, was born as another man and was as another man as to the things which He derived from the mother Mary; and as the rational is formed by means of the knowledges, external and internal, which enter through things of the external senses, or those of the external man, therefore His first rational was born as with any other man; but as He by His own power was to make all the things that were human in Himself Divine, so also was it with the rational. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 1893.2)

...the Lord wholly exterminated His first rational, so that nothing of it remained; for what is merely human cannot be together with the Divine. Hence He was no longer the son of Mary, but Jehovah as to each Essence. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 2657.7)

That He was born of the virgin Mary is known, yet as another man; but when He was born again, or became Divine, it was from Jehovah who was in Him, and Who was Himself as to the very Being of life. The unition of the Divine and the Human Essence was effected mutually and reciprocally, so that He united the Divine Essence to the Human and the Human to the Divine. Hence it may be evident that the Lord made the Human in Himself Divine by His own power, and thus became Justice. The merit of justice was what was adjoined to the Divine rational when He underwent inmost temptations, from which He then fought, and against which the evil genii fought, until He glorified that also. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 2798.2)

The progession of His human to Divinity continued to the end of his life. And this explains why Jesus is called Lord in the New Testament, but not Jehovah, for during his ministry he had not yet made his human Divine:

Among the hidden causes of their calling Jehovah the Lord, were the following: if at that time it had been said that the Lord was the Jehovah so often named in the Old Testament, men would not have accepted it, for they would not have believed it; and further, because the Lord did not become Jehovah as to the Human also, until He had in every way united the Divine Essence to the Human Essence, and the Human to the Divine. The full unition was accomplished after the last temptation, which was that of the cross; and for this reason after the resurrection the disciples always called Him Lord. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 2921.6)

In a similar manner, today, Muslims believe Jesus to just be a prophet.

The doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary is false: for Jesus received hereditary evil in his human form from Mary, by which he could be tempted and battle against hell:

That this was hereditary evil from the mother, against which the Lord combated, may be evident from what has been shown respecting that hereditary (n. 1414, 1444, 1573); and from His expelling it, so that at length He was not the son of Mary (Heavenly Arcana, n. 4563).

Thus those who subscribe to the immaculate conception, that Mary was born without sin, are not going to properly understand how Jesus saved humanity. The doctrine is late and was added by the Catholic Church: the Orthodox Church does not accept this doctrine.

That his human was Divine, was shown in the transfiguration:

The Lord was indeed born as another man, and had an infirm human from the mother; but this human the Lord entirely cast out, so that He was no longer the son of Mary, and made the Human in Himself Divine, which is meant by His being glorified; and He also showed to Peter, James, and John, when He was transfigured, that He was a Divine Man. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 4692.5)

Repeatedly it is said that the human from Mary was expelled and replaced with a Divine nature:

...with the Lord the prior forms, which were from the maternal, were altogether destroyed and extirpated, and Divine forms received in their place. For the Divine love does not agree with any but a Divine form; all other forms it absolutely casts out; hence it is that the Lord when glorified was no longer the son of Mary. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 6872.4)

He expelled all the human which was from the mother, until at length He was not the son of Mary (Heavenly Arcana, n. 9315.5)

With the Lord however there was not removal, but casting out of those which He derived from the mother, thus full liberation from them, even so that He was no longer the son of Mary (Heavenly Arcana, n. 10057.6)

When the Lord fully glorified His Human, then He put off the human from the mother and put on the Human from the Father. Wherefore then He was no longer the son of Mary, but the Son of God, from Whom He came forth. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 10830)

What about the title of "Son of Man" - why does Jesus call himself that? It is a symbolic appelation, as "man" is a symbol of truth and "woman" is a symbolic form of love:

...the Son of Man, as the Lord called Himself, is not the son of Mary, but the Divine truth (Heavenly Arcana, n. 10053).

What about the Trinity? Here is one brief statement:

That there is a trine in the Lord, namely, the Divine Itself, the Divine Human, and the Divine proceeding, is an arcanum from heaven and for those who shall be in the holy Jerusalem. (Heavenly Arcana, n. 10831)

So NO, there is no such thing as a "second person" of the Trinity. The Son of God is the human that was born to the virgin Mary, and was made Divine by Jehovah. Which is why the apostle John stated it was important to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed born in the flesh.

...the Human of the Lord, conceived of Jehovah the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary, is the Son of God (Doctrine of the Lord, n. 19)

The Father and Son are one in the sense that the soul and body of Jesus are one, and cannot be separated:

From this it follows, that the Divine cannot be separated from the Human, and that the Human cannot be separated from the Divine; for to separate them would be like separating soul and body. That it is so, every one will also acknowledge who reads what is cited above (n. 19 and 21) from two of the Evangelists (Luke i. 26-35, and Matt. 18-25), concerning the Lord's birth; from which it is plain that Jesus was conceived of Jehovah God, and born of the Virgin Mary: so that the Divine was in Him, and it was His Soul. Now, as His Soul was the Divine itself of the Father, it follows that His Body or Human was also made Divine; for where the one is, the other must be also. Thus and not otherwise are the Father and the Son one; the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father. (Doctrines of the Lord, n. 29)

And it is true, that the Divine could not intermix or commingle with the human:

The Lord successively put off the human taken from the mother, and put on the Human from the Divine in Himself, which is the Divine Human and the Son of God. That the Lord had a Divine and a human, — the Divine from Jehovah the Father, and a human from the Virgin Mary, — is known. Thence it is that He was God and Man; and thus He had a Divine essence and a human nature, — the Divine essence from the Father, and the human nature from the mother; and thence He was equal to the Father as to the Divine, and less than the Father as to the human: also (as the doctrine of faith which is called the Athanasian Creed teaches) that He did not transmute this human nature from the mother into the Divine essence, nor commix it with it; for the human nature cannot be transmuted into the Divine essence, nor can it be commixed with it. And yet from the same creed is our doctrine, that the Divine took on the Human, that is, united itself to it, as the soul unites itself to its body, until they were not two, but one person. (Doctrine of the Lord, n. 35).

SWEDENBORG AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

When one understands this, one can understand how Jesus saved humanity by conquering hell through his human body, which is the view espoused by the Orthodox Church against the later doctrine of the vicarious atonement of the Catholic and Protestant churches. Unfortunately the Orthodox Church is highly traditional, and is not likely to reject the Nicene Creed as that is treated as a foundational creed by all three branches of Christianity. But at least they reject vicarious atonement, they reject the doctrine of faith alone by the Protestants, and they reject many other beliefs added onto Christianity by the Catholic Church. From a New Church point of view, these manifestations of the virgin Mary in Egypt are highly significant. Why so? Swedenborg foresaw that while the revelations given to him would be rejected by western Christianity, a similar independent revelation would be established by visions in the continent of Africa, which he described in his final work, True Christian Religion.

Here is the song Ya umm Allah dedicated to Mary by Fairouz, a Lebanese singer of the Syriac Orthodox Church:

Angel Appears before thousands on top of a Coptic Church [+VIDEO]

Miracles rarely happen, and when they do, we should take note.  I just saw this, and it blows me away - a human figure of light appeared before thousands on top of an Orthodox Coptic Church in Warraq Egypt on December 11, 2009, which was caught by many on video cameras. I had previously blogged about a rare appearance of what appears to be an angelic light in The Light of an Angel caught on Video Tape, which healed a young girl who was dying on her hospital bed.  That was just a brief flash.  Compare it with this one, where it lasts for 3-4 hours, and is seen by thousands. Here is the first video, where the figure of light appears on top of the church among three crosses that are somehow glowing with golden light:



Part 2, the figure of light is now on top of the center cross. Note the cross of light suspended above the glowing figure in mid-air.



Part 3, this looks like a different part of the church:



Part 4, back on top of roof with the 3 crosses, towards the end you see it disappear in a pinpoint of light. Note the top of glowing figure has a golden hue, whereas below it there is a bluish hue:


Here is another one: a globe of light flying in the air above the crosses, which some witnesses had identified with a luminous dove:





This was reported in the news, and I have seen some pathetic explanations by skeptics that this was just a light of a tower behind the church.  That is clearly not the case here.  It moved between the domes on the roof. In the last video it is a figure of light on the church, that disappears into a pinpoint of light.  Thousands of people would not gather between 1 and 4am in the morning because of a light in a tower. Although a vague human form can only be seen in these videos, the first witness saw it coalesce into a human female form, which was identified with the virgin Mary:

The first person who saw the alleged apparition of Mary was reportedly a Muslim neighbour. He was said to be sitting at his local coffee shop when he apparently saw a strong light coming from the Coptic Orthodox place of worship. He and others are said to have observed the light condense into a female form. Mary allegedly appeared in luminous robes, in a pure white dress and a royal blue belt, with a crown on her head.

The Coptic Orthodox church regards it as a valid apparition.  From Apparitions of the Blessed Holy Virgin Mary at El-Warraq Coptic Orthodox Church, Greater Cairo, Egypt (which has more videos in Arabic as well):

The Bishopric of Giza announces that the Holy Virgin has appeared in a transfiguration at the Church named after her in Warraq al-Hadar, Giza, in the early hours of Friday 11 December 2009 at 1:00am. The Holy Virgin appeared in her full height in luminous robes, above the middle dome of the church, in pure white dress and a royal blue belt. She had a crown on her head, above which appeared the cross on top of the dome. The crosses on top of the church’s domes and towers glowed brightly with light. The Holy Virgin moved between the domes and on to the top of the church gate between its two twin towers. The local residents all saw her.
The apparition lasted from 1:00am till 4:00am on Friday, and was registered by cameras and cell phones. Some 3,000 people from the neighbourhood, surrounding areas, and passers-by gathered in the street in front of the church to see the apparition.

Looking at the last video one can see a bluish hue towards the bottom, and gold around where the head would be. What is the significance of this?  The Orthodox Coptic Church is very ancient, older than the Roman Catholic Church and was founded by the Apostle Mark.  I first started to study the Orthodox church when I discovered that their theology of how Jesus saved humanity is very similar to the New Church theology described to Emanuel Swedenborg in visions in the 18th century.  I described the Orthodox church a little bit in The Older Forgotten Branch of Christianity. They do not believe in the theology of "vicarious atonement" as Catholics and Protestants do - this I described a bit in The Error of Vicarious Atonement and Christus Victor, Pauline Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I recently found a Coptic Church near where I live, and talked to a deacon of that church.  Rather than stressing an immediate "conversion" or just faith, they stress a life long process where we should all try to imitate the image and life of Jesus Christ. After repentance, God's grace is given that begins to fill our heart with love.  This spiritual process is very similar to what I described in The Three Steps of Spiritual Development. After talking with that deacon, I just happened to stumble upon these videos.

And why does the angel appear as a female with a crown? It may not necessarily be the virgin Mary, but an angel who represents the church itself, from the vision of John in the Apocalypse:

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.
Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. (Rev. 12:1-6)

The vision is symbolic: it refers to the future dawn of the New Church, where one God is worshiped, where the Lord's humanity is regarded as Divine: the God Man, or Divine Human, which is the reason for the ritual of the communion. The revelation is opposed by the dragon, which represents those who divide God into three persons and stress salvation by faith alone. This is described in more detail by Swedenborg in Apocalypse Revealed and Apocalypse Explained.

COMPARISON WITH BIBLICAL MIRACLES

There are a number of miracles mentioned in the Bible which can be compared to this one.  Skeptical scholars always try to explain them away as embellishments, or mistaking natural phenomenon.  And they still do - despite the evidence for the angelic apparition, they just try and try to explain them away. This is because skeptics are in a state of denial of everything, despite the evidence sitting in front of them. I should mention here, that it is better to have a spiritual faith drawn from the truths of scripture, than from miracles: it is more stable and longer lasting:

Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:24-29)

So here are some Biblical manifestations that can be compared to the angelic form that appeared in Egypt in 2009. Notice they are always forms of bright light:

The  Burning Bush of Moses

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn." (Ex. 3:1-3)

A Pillar of Fire by Day, a Pillar of Cloud by Night

And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from before the people. (Ex. 13:21-22)

The Glory of God's Presence on Mt. Sinai

The sight of the glory of the LORD was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Ex. 24:17)

Appearance of an Angel to Daniel

Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris,

I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. 10:4-6)

The Transfiguration of Jesus

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:1-5)

Appearance of an Angel at the Tomb of Jesus

And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. (Matt. 28:2-6)

What is Blood Atonement or Vicarious Atonement?

It is taught in Christianity that God became incarnate in a human form to save humanity.  But how, exactly, did this happen?  Why was it necessary?  If all men are judged on the basis of their actions, why did God need to come to reveal Himself in human form, and suffer, until He rose from the dead?  If this is what you believe, and someone directly asks you how this can be so, can you explain it in logical manner, or are you going to say it is a "mystery of faith"?

The Protestant explanation, is that God revealed this law to the Jews, but the purpose of that revelation was not for man to fulfill his duty of the law, but rather it was to show that man was imperfect and could not fulfill it.  Therefore, Jesus came to fulfill the law, and as God was "wrathful" with mankind for their sin, all sins were then "transferred" to Jesus on the cross.  And all one has to do is believe, pay lip service, and then one's sins are automatically transferred to Jesus on the cross.  And when God looks at you, He sees the righteousness of Jesus. This is the theology of the Protestant churches, and somewhat the Catholic as well.

There is just one problem. On a close examination of scripture, it disagrees with multiple passages in scripture.  And if one looks at it logically, it makes no sense.  Yet something happened where Jesus saved humanity. On close examination of the New Testament, He did this so that the Holy Spirit could come and cleanse our heart, when we perform acts of repentance. We had so departed from God's will that it was necessary that a direct link be opened up, as communion with heaven was cut off. Without communion with heaven, no man can do good, and one's will cannot be reformed. Not only does this make perfect sense, but also it is not contrary to the earlier revelation given to the Jews: it was still necessary for each person to keep God's commandments. We are responsible for our actions, and it is still necessary to turn against evil. One does this by periodic self examination. There are different stages of spiritual development, which I discuss in The Three Steps of Spiritual Development.

So why do people believe in "blood atonement" or "vicarious atonement"?  This kind of theology actually began to become popular in the 11th century A.D., after the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church.  The Protestant Reformers inherited this theology from the Catholic Church. There are certain passages that are used as "proof texts" to support the doctrine.  In the gospel of Matthew, there is just one short reference, where Jesus establishes the ritual of communion:

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:27-28)

So, the logic goes, God required a "sacrifice" to satisfy His "wrath" against humanity.  Two errors in this thinking, one implicit, the other explicit:

1. The theology assumes a wrathful Father God, and this separate being, the Son, could only fulfill His requirements. This comes from the false idea of a trinity of three persons. In fact, it was God Himself who became incarnate in the human form. The human form in which He became incarnate is the Son.
2.  God is pure Love, and never gets angry or wrathful.  When men sin, they turn away from this love, and as they cannot receive it, God appears "wrathful" to them when they are in this sinful state.

In other words, for God to become incarnate, it was done out of pure love.  But what about the reference to the blood that gets poured out for the remission of sins?  Doesn't that mean a sacrifice was necessary to remove sin?  The scriptural passage is problematic: as in many situations, Jesus did not speak directly, but in a round about away - and this has led to innumerable disputes, especially when it comes to the Eucharist or communion.  The problem is Jesus is now describing a symbolic ritual.  That by body and blood in the communion ritual He means something else, is shown more explicitly in the gospel of John:

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56)

When Jesus mentioned the above, many were confused and left from following Him. Taken literally it makes no sense. And it is important to note, He said this before He revealed the ritual of the communion.  By body and blood, He is talking about something spiritual - but what?  If we return back to the gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, that His blood "is shed for many for the remission of sins." Lets look at other passages in the gospels which mention the "remission of sins":

John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)
Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

So note the above passages: remission of sins, their removal, is only done through acts of repentance. Without turning away from sin, there is no remission. You are responsible for your actions. Once you recognize a specific sinful behavior, and turn against it, by reforming one's life, the sin is removed. Plain and simple.  That is how you cleanse your life.  Note that the first passage was stated before Jesus made His sacrifice, the second after it. Nothing changed in terms of our human responsibility to repent and follow God's commandments.

SANCTIFICATION IS BY THE DIVINE TRUTH, OR HOLY SPIRIT

If we go outside the gospels, we come to a statement from the apostle Peter:

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

Again, remission of sins is based on repentance.  This cleansing is symbolized by water baptism. Water baptism, in turn, is symbolic of the spiritual reception of the Holy Spirit in one's heart. That is what happens when you repent from your sin, for once you cleanse your heart, the way is prepared for a closer communion with God, where He will abide in you, and you in Him.  Thus baptism should be done in the name of Jesus Christ, from whom comes the Holy Spirit.

People are sanctified, or spiritually cleansed, by knowing, understanding, and living by the Divine Truth. This is drawn from the word of scripture. Thus Jesus said:

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (John 17:17)

Jesus first had to sanctify or cleanse Himself, so that others could be sanctified. This is not so well understood in modern Christian churches, as they either assume He was born perfect, and/or that Mary had no sin from a type of Marian worship. Although His soul was Divine, the human body He inherited from Mary was not, and thus could be tempted to do sin. Conflict between Jehovah and all of hell ensued as a result (see Jesus the Shaman - Descent into the Underworld). Sanctification was the process of resisting sin in His human body, until His very body was made Divine. Thus Jesus says the following:

And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. (John 17:19)

Once Jesus sanctified His body, and it was made Divine, the Divine truth extended from His body as the Holy Spirit. His spirit was Divine, and became universably available. This was not available until Jesus made His body glorified, or Divine, or one with the Father:

...the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39)

The Holy Spirit is not a separate being or person existing from eternity. It is the Divine spirit proceeding from the body of Jesus, which flows through the body from the Divine itself, the Father.  It is through the Holy Spirit that people are cleansed from sin:

...that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:16)

But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11)
God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth (2 Cor. 2:13)

THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS

In addition to the reference to sanctification by the Holy Spirit, there are numerous passages which state that sins are not removed except through the blood of Jesus. So what does this mean? Are sins removed by repentance through knowing and acting upon the Divine truth of the word, or by the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross? Is one sanctified by the Divine truth of the Holy Spirit, or by the blood of a sacrifice? I will quote a few of these passages below:

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7).
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:13).
...we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14)
For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood (Rev. 5:9)

The following passages talk about sanctification by the blood of Jesus:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10).
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Heb. 10:14)
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate (Heb. 13:12)
if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7)

So the question again is this: are we sanctified by repentance and living according to the Divine truth of the Holy Spirit, or is it through the blood of Jesus Christ?  The following passage is interesting, as sanctification by the Holy Spirit is mentioned in conjunction with the sacrifice by Jesus:

elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:2)

The implication here is that to be baptized by the Holy Spirit is the same as being washed by the blood of Jesus. To be "washed by blood" is a symbolic figure of speech. That to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, and to be cleansed or sanctified by the Holy Spirit, is one and the same thing, is shown by the spiritual meaning of "blood" represented by wine in communion. Swedenborg explains this in the following passage:

From known correspondences what is meant by the Lord's flesh and blood is known, and that the bread and wine have a similar meaning; that by the Lord's flesh and by the bread the Divine Good of His Love is meant, also all the good of charity; and by the Lord's blood and by the wine the Divine Truth of His Wisdom is meant, also all the truth of faith; and by the eating is meant appropriation. (True Christian Religion, n. 702)

Throughout his writings, Swedenborg explains from scripture in multiple passages where food or bread is symbolic of love, and blood (or wine) are symbolic forms of truth. I won't go into those passages at the moment as this blog would become too long, but I can sum it up with the consideration that in the Old Testament the life of the soul was said to reside in the blood. At one point, Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them. Likewise, we now know through science that it is through the blood that oxygen is carried to all our cells in the body.  It is by acknowledgment of the truth, and acknowledgment of our sins, that we are reformed and regenerated.

The reason why the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is so tied in with the blood of Jesus is that without His sacrifice, the Holy Spirit would be unavailable to us. And it was not just His death on the cross - it was a life-long sacrifice of Jesus resisting sin and temptation in His human until that human was made Divine. From His body proceeds the Holy Spirit. When each person commits an act of repentance to turn away from sin, thus cleansing oneself, it is the Lord who helps one internally through one's will and thought to fight against any internal sin or evil. Thus in the Lord's prayer it is said, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." For only God can resist evil, but He cannot act unless we act through the will to turn away from evil. Thus every Christian becomes an extension of Christ, who resisted sin and temptation in His own human. Thus it is said, we are the body of Christ - quite more literally than what is generally known.

So from the New Church standpoint, there is no such thing as "vicarious atonement", where sins are automatically transferred to the passion of the cross about 2,000 years ago to satisfy a wrathful God. It makes absolutely no logical sense, it is impractical in everyday life, is contrary to repentance, and goes against common-sense morality and human responsibility. Is it any wonder that western society in general has become secular and immoral? This is a late theology that originated in the 11th century A.D., and was extended further by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century A.D. It is a late theology, and was not a part of the original gospel. Protestant churches will take this one point alone and try to claim that the New Church is some sort of "cult", without realizing it is they who are following a corrupted theology of Christianity. That this theology is late, and was unknown to the early Christian Church, is shown by the fact that the Orthodox Church does not follow this theology of "vicarious atonement", but have a very similar theology of salvation to what was revealed more explicitly in the revelations given to Emanuel Swedenborg. And one does not even need to read Swedenborg to reach this conclusion - I had arrived at the same quite independently, just thinking about it in a rational fashion by examining scripture. For an Orthodox view on this idea of vicarious atonement, I can recommend the site, Why I cannot in good conscience be a Protestant", in which is said the following:

In the briefest terms possible, Orthodox Christians do not believe that Christ’s death was payment to God the Father for sin, but rather that Christ has redeemed human nature by participating in it. The Incarnation was necessary because Christ redeemed our human nature and reconciled it to God by uniting it with His divinity.

The Older Forgotten Branch of Christianity

Most people in the west are familiar with the Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity, a little less the Orthodox Church...and fewer still the Oriental Orthodox Church. The point of confusion here is that the "Eastern Orthodox" Church is different than the Oriental Orthodox Church.  To simplify things, here is a nice chart of the main branches of Christianity:

Why do I show this chart?  Because, as explained earlier, the prophecies of Daniel which speak of the "abomination of desolation" concern the corruption of the Christian Church in the fifth century A.D.  And everything is beginning to point to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 A.D. - which divided Christ into two natures, the Divine and the human.  Ironically, this exact theology was condemned earlier in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

So where does the prophesied future church of the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation lie on this chart?  Well, bits and pieces of its theology, as explained in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg as revealed in over 25 years of visions, are scattered across the branches of the tree.  To sum this up quickly, I will mention the major doctrines of the New Church, and indicate which churches adhere to similar doctrines:

1.  There is a Trinity in one person, Jesus Christ.  The trinity of three persons is a falsehood.  The one church that also adheres to a similar doctrine is the Pentecostal church, which began independently from the New Church in the 20th century.  I do need to read up on their exact opinion, however Swedenborg explains this in better detail, as a trine of the soul, body and operation (spirit) in one person - which happens to exist in every human being.  The problem I see with the Pentecostal church is that they take a very minor spiritual gift - speaking in tongues - and make it a "requirement" as a sign of baptism. In many cases, people are encouraged to profane what is holy by pretending to speak in a foreign language, or to confuse emotional enthusiasm with the Holy Spirit.
2.  Salvation of humanity occurred when Jesus made his human Divine. The churches that adhere to this doctrine, to some extent, are the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches.  Except they don't see this as a gradual process that occurred over the lifetime of Jesus.  Other churches, especially the Catholic and Protestant, follow the doctrine of "vicarious atonement", where the death of Jesus satisfied the "penalty of sin".  This theology came late in the history of the church, first promoted by Anselm.  Swedenborg spoke strongly against this kind of theology, thus he concentrates mostly on the false theology of the Protestant and Catholic churches.
3.  Although born as a human, Jesus gradually shed this human nature until it was completely absorbed into His Divinity. He has one nature: the Divine.  The only other church that holds to any sort of Non-Chalcedonian theology is the Oriental Orthodox Church.  However there are some differences of understanding, as they do hold onto the false view of a trinity of three persons. I have been reading up on some of their opinions on this issue from a Coptic Church web site.  Similar to Swedenborg, the leader of the Coptic Church explains that the Divine and the human are united in one person in one nature, just as the soul and body are united in each and every person. This was the exact opinion of some very ancient theologians of the Christian church. Their main point: what was condemned in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. was then reversed 20 years later in the Council of Chalcedon. According to tradition, this church was founded by the Apostle Mark.

I have simplified my above assessments. Most outsiders, when trying to understand the division, will state that it is over a difference in terminology.  That is not the case.  For the doctrine of the Divine Human is the very center of Christianity, it is the reason for the ritual of the Eucharist. For by making His human Divine, the Divine can now operate in every human who seeks to repent of his or her sins: if he or she tries, and implores the Lord for help. Without understanding that, there will be no understanding of how Jesus saved humanity.

As explained before, the reason for the Council of Chalcedon to divide the nature of Christ was so that the Papacy of the Catholic Church could claim to be the Vicar of Christ, which they could not do unless Jesus retained a human nature.  And when the Pope gained the support of the Byzantine Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church in the Middle East was persecuted by the Byzantine Empire from the fifth to the seventh centuries A.D. Persecution stopped only when the Oriental Orthodox church allied themselves to the Arab Muslims against the Byzantine Empire.

THE 1290 AND 1335 YEAR PROPHECY OF DANIEL

This background is necessary to understand the 1290 and 1335 year prophecy of the book of Daniel:

And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days (Dan. 12:11-12)

The "abomination of desolation" has nothing to do with a Jewish temple, it has to do with the true temple: the body of Jesus Christ.  It is the denial that Jesus made His human Divine. For in making His human Divine, He resisted all sin and temptation, and through that means He conquered the power of hell over humanity.

As explained before, these two time periods last from 455 - 1790 A.D., and 499 - 1789 A.D.  It is no coincidence: after the Pope was successful in obtaining a favorable decision in the Council of Chalcedon to divide Christ into two natures, Rome was attacked and plundered by the Vandals in 455 A.D. as punishment. The power of the Roman Catholic Church would not be destroyed until the French Revolution which began in 1789-90 A.D.

The Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths which invaded the Roman Empire followed a particular heresy which the Catholic Church fought against vigorously: Arianism, which declared that Jesus was a created being.  With the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 an finally in 493 A.D., Italy came under the control of the Ostrogoths.  The Papacy became the religious power which succeeded the Roman Empire.  Thus it allied itself with the Byzantine Empire in the East to help it to exterminate Arianism. Another ally the Catholic Church obtained: Clovis, king of the Franks, who converted to Catholicism in 497 A.D.  This brings us closer to the year 499 A.D., which seems to be the beginning of the 1290 year period of Daniel.

The 499 A.D. falls into the middle of a period known as the "Acacian Schism" which lasted from 484 to 519 A.D.  This was a period of time during which the Byzantine Empire sought to become reunited with its "Monophysite" (or "Miaphysite") subjects, now known as the Oriental Orthodox church, which held to the true doctrine that Jesus has one nature: the Divine.  The Catholic Church fought against this.  There was one point in time, however, where it seems that it came close where the Catholic Church could have turned against the Council of Chalcedon: that was when two Popes were elected in 498 A.D.: Pope Symmachus, and an "anti-Pope", Laurentius.  Ultimately a synod was held in 499 A.D. in which the fate of Laurentius was sealed, and would never seek the Papacy after that time.  Symmachus, as it turns out, had bribed voters with money in order to secure his election. It was Laurentius who favored reconciliation with the Byzantine Empire over the issue of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Monophysites of the Oriental Orthodox Church who held to the belief that Jesus had one nature, the Divine.

So, this is why 499 A.D. is the year selected as the beginning of the "abomination of desolation" in the prophecy of Daniel.  It was not a political event, but a spiritual event within the Church, in which the standard theology was decided for future generations of the Christian Church. The ones who were against it, and are still against it, belong to the forgotten branch of Christianity.  It is this forgotten theology of the Divine Human which was revealed again in the visions of Emanuel Swedenborg.  Thus the New Church, or the New Jerusalem, technically is not "new": it is a new revelation of a very old and forgotten truth of Christianity.

A RESTORATION OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY

Seeing this is a popular post, let this not be the "forgotten" branch of Christianity. We should seek to restore it.  And indeed, that is what God intends to do.  In the revelations given to Emanuel Swedenborg, True Christianity should be restored based on two simple principles:

1. There is one God who is one being, one person, who is Jesus Christ.
2. That would should repent of one's sins and live a life according to the 10 commandments.

From these two principles, all the other doctrines of a restored Christian Church can be derived. In fact, all principle doctrines of this restored Christianity can be found in The Doctrines of the New Jerusalem and True Christian Religion, published by Emanuel Swedenborg in the 18th century. And this came by way of revelation. Everything else is not important, in fact, God loves variety in worship. He did not tell us everything in the way we should worship Him, and has given us free will to discover him. Thus we have this passage:

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Prov. 25:2)

Yes, God hides things, and is waiting for us to discover it. This restoration of Christianity is prophesied in the book of Revelation: the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea - is in fact a letter to all the Christian denominations of the present day. Jesus points out their errors - including those of the Protestant and Catholic churches.  Once the revelation is given, it will be opposed by established denominations who subscribe to faith alone and vicarious atonement: this is signified by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet.  The beginning of the New Church, first established among the few, will be very hard, and initially rejected: this is the symbolism of the two witnesses. But in the end, a New Church is established on earth: this is the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven. You do not need to look up in the sky and wait for it. It is here. Now.