Chambumo-ron Lectures & Discussion 1st March 2025 - Part 2/4

Gave which is not my idea, just stuff I felt he has in mind. That's what it's written there. And so then he said, 'Oh, I'm not going to decide. You Jews have to decide.' They all demanded that Jesus should be the one crucified, not Barabbas, who, according to what it says, Pilate wanted to release Jesus and not Barabbas. Whether the Jews were being pushed by the priests to let his blood be upon us and upon our children, I think that was all just fabricated so you could go around mistreating and treating Jews with contempt based upon that and feeling you have a clear conscience for it. Basically, Christians have had a clear conscience for 2,000 years of anti-Semitism because the Jews said they wanted their children and descendants to be punished. When you actually analyse it, it's horrendous. Just a few verses there, the impact it's had. There's a Russian philosopher called Solzhenitsyn I was just reading something about. Anyway, we just went live now. I was reading his writing, a commentary about Christianity and Judaism, saying, 'Well, you know, if the Jews are mistreated in this way for allegedly what they did to Jesus, why aren't the Greeks treated the same way for what they did to Socrates?' Well, it depends. Socrates is the greatest Greek philosopher, and they had him put to death, but nobody blames the Jews today for that. Jesus, though, Jews today are blamed for killing Jesus 2,000 years ago. I went to the Lameth Palace not very long ago for a CCJ event, and I was talking to lots of different people. One particular person I was talking to was a Jewish student involved in Jewish-Christian relations at his university. He said that talking to Christians, they said, 'You killed Jesus.' It's not unusual for Jews today to be accused by Christians of murdering Jesus. Then where does that go? How do you think, as a Jew, you feel? Did I murder him? Did I kill him? He got killed 2,000 years ago, not by me, maybe not by anybody I'm related to, but nobody ever says that to Greeks: 'You murdered and executed the greatest philosopher in Europe.' Probably there's no providential significance. Socrates was providentially significant, so that in itself is just theology. That's what I call historical revisionism. You take an ideology or theology and you interpret something that happened in history in that way, but you don't do that with Socrates. Why not? He was the greatest philosopher in European history. Because of this thing, which was invented, 'Let his blood be upon us and our children,' it becomes a justification for doing that. That's how a lie creates a myth, and the consequences of that myth and that lie was a Holocaust for which most Christians in Europe feel no sense of guilt, even though it happened very recently. So that was a question I said this famous Russian philosopher Solzhenitsyn asked: 'Why do you treat Jews like this, but you don't treat Greeks like this?' It doesn't feel right because you are brought up as a Christian to believe that Jesus is God. Well, no, you don't believe that anymore, but you believe he was the Messiah. You believe he's the Son of God, maybe the only begotten Son of God, and therefore he was a much more important person than Socrates. But that's just as Tolkien said, you're reading that into it. The Romans don't get blamed for that. Solzhenitsyn said, 'Well, why aren't the Romans being blamed for that? They're the ones that put him to death. They're the ones that charged him with the political crime of trying to lead an uprising against the Roman occupation. Why aren't the Romans held responsible? Why aren't the Romans held responsible for destroying the temple, taking all the gold that was offered to God in tithing and using it to rebuild their city? Why does nobody bring that up? That was God's holy place, that was the temple. Nobody mentions that. You go to the Coliseum; I went there once. As far as I know, it didn't say on the sign what it is. It didn't say where the money came from. You can look it up in the books; that's where it all came from. So why don't they do that? Why don't they say, 'Well, maybe we should dismantle it and send all the money back again? Maybe we should go and have reparations.' Sorry, yeah, but some, yeah, yeah, I know, but okay, Jews never ask for it back. What I'm saying is the history should be accurately recorded, not historical revisionism, which is what you get with the crucifixion of Jesus, historical revisionism with the destruction of the temple. Some people want reparations. You know, it's the Black Lives Matter thing and all that stuff going on in different countries. Which country sent more slaves across the Atlantic? Do you know? Now, which country, which European country sent the most slaves across the Atlantic? No, it's Portugal. Look it up. Look it up. Sorry, if you go look it up in Wikipedia on slavery, it tells you exactly how many. Yeah, all of Portugal, Southeast Asia, South America, okay, Brazil, all those countries. Okay, but anybody want money out of the Portuguese? Why not? Because they haven't got any. So the idea that all this money is made because of slavery is actually not true. Historical revisionism again. Anyway, let's not go there. So I had this conversation with Franco, which I was mentioning, and he helped me correct some of the things I had done last time, so I thought I'd bring that up. So 'monogen'—that's in English, well, Latin script. That's in the Greek script 'monogenes.' The word is made up, as I said before, of the prefix 'mono,' which means one, like, you know, stereo. What's the other one called? Mono, isn't it? Mono or something? A monopoly, just one person controlling a whole industry. That's where 'mono' comes from; it's just one. And 'genes'—the traditional view is that 'genes' is to be derived from the Greek verb, oh gosh, I won't try my Greek; it's terrible these days. Anyway, it means to beget. So that 'monogen' means only begotten. But the more recent view—again, scholars are discussing these things, trying to figure out—the more recent view is that 'genes' is derived from 'genos,' meaning class, sort, or kind. So that 'monogen' must mean one of a kind or unique. In support of this latter view, some point out that 'genes' has only a single 'n,' the Greek letter pronounced 'nu,' as does 'monogen,' while the other one has two 'n's, so it's pronounced differently. Okay, say two. So the word is there. How do you translate it? The Latin version, which became the basis of European translations, is really important to read. The old Latin codex of the Bible, 'Vulgate,' was apparently written in 365 AD by Uss, the Bishop of Vercelli. He also is one of the main earliest Church historians. The document contains the Gospels, and there the word 'monogenes' is translated into Latin as 'unicus,' meaning only or the only son. So Jesus was the only son. Jerome, who went to Rome in 382 AD and undertook a revision of the old Latin version of the Bible, made changes specifically to verses in John, which is where the whole idea comes from. He changed the Latin word 'unicus' to 'unigenitus,' which means only begotten. Why did he do that? That's the important thing. Why did he change the Greek word that was translated accurately into the Latin word 'unicus,' where then Jerome translated it, changed, modified, edited it to be 'unigenitus,' which means only begotten? What is Jerome? He was one of the greatest Bible scholars. He studied Hebrew and he studied Greek, and on that basis, he modified the Latin. He's one of the Church Fathers, one of the greatest of the early Church Fathers, particularly focused upon the text. Why did he do it? This is the important question. He did it to combat Arianism, which taught that Jesus was created and not of the same substance as the Father. These are the big arguments going on over the Creed. The Nicene Creed: Is Jesus of the same substance as the Father or similar substance to the Father? The followers of Tertullian and the followers of Arius, you know, and there's a big conflict and big argument. He wanted to change it from 'only son' to 'only begotten son,' and then it fits into the Trinity. The Nicene Creed says, as I said last time, 'I believe in you, Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, God from God, light from light, very God from very God, begotten, not created.' That's the Nicene Creed, but the Arians didn't believe that. Okay, so to be able to transfer the claim to be a Christian from everybody to just the people who believe in the Nicene Creed, then all the Arians are no longer regarded as Christians, and they were now excommunicated and kicked out of the Roman Empire, along with the Nestorians and lots of other people. So this is what I'm talking about: historical revisionism. This is when you go along and you edit the scripture, you edit a text so it fits with what you want, your own political interpretation and intention. That's the problem. That's what happened, and we're suffering the consequences, you know, a thousand years later. So when Father comes along and says, 'Well, Jesus wasn't God,' did that go down well? No, because it's not what it says in the Nicene Creed. So that's why we were told, 'You're not Christians because you don't believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. You don't believe Jesus is God. You don't believe he's the second person of the Trinity. He always existed.' Yeah, okay, so who is Jesus? Which I mentioned before last time: who is Jesus for Christians? He's the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, the second person of the Trinity, of the same substance as the Father. It says in the Nicene Creed, and also it says in the Nicene Creed he has existed for eternity. Anybody who says Jesus has not existed for eternity is anathema, and you're expelled. It's not in the Nicene Creed itself; it's in the footnotes to it and so on. On that basis then, Christians say and claim that Jesus is God, not that Jesus himself went around claiming to be God. According to Augustine, who basically elaborated the whole idea of original sin, he said that Jesus is born without original sin because Mother Mary was born without original sin. I talked about the Virgin birth before. So Mother Mary then is described particularly within the Catholic Church as the Mother of God. Particularly, Catholics believe in what's called the Immaculate Conception, the belief that the Virgin Mary herself was free from original sin from the moment of her conception by her mother, St Anne. Okay, so you know, if you're going to claim Jesus is born without original sin, you have to try and explain, well, how is that possible? Okay, the Virgin birth. Well, at least you haven't got a dad involved; God is the dad. But well, is Mary born with original sin? If Mary's born with original sin, then surely how can Jesus not be born with original sin? They have to come up with and say, 'Well, actually with Mary, it's the Immaculate Conception; she herself was born without original sin.' But they don't want to try and explain how that is possible, so they don't; they just state it. It's a doctrine, the Immaculate Conception. Did you hear about that in your Catholic upbringing? Yes, again, this is theology. Is it true or not? Well, that's what C.S. Lewis and Tolkien were discussing. What is it there for? That's why it's there. And is Jesus God then? Well, what does it say in the Divine Principle? Jesus may well be called God because as a man who has realised the purpose of creation and who lives in oneness with God, he has a divine nature. Nevertheless, he is not God himself, and this is why we are accused of not being Christians. Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' We should understand that Jesus did not mean by this saying that he is God himself. While on Earth, Jesus is a man no different from any of us, except for the fact that he is born without original sin. That comes from not the Bible; it comes from Augustine. We can conclude with finality that Jesus was not God himself from the words he uttered on the cross: 'My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' So if Jesus is God, why would he be having a conversation with himself? So this is the principal perspective: Jesus was not God; he's a human being born without original sin, became one with God. Yeah, so if you've been reading and studying the CH, thank you. One of the things that is said there is that Christians don't believe what the essence of Jesus is. Have you come across that? Does the Chungbo explain what the essence of Jesus is or was? No? What do you mean telling us about? Well, I'm not. This is the Jesus is a human being, yes. But anyway, so the Chungmoon doesn't actually explain what the essence of Jesus was; it doesn't go into that, which I find curious. Why not? Any more than it goes into explaining what the phrase 'only begotten daughter' means or 'only begotten son' means. So what does it mean then to say that True Mother, Hak Ja Han, is the only begotten daughter of God? So in the Chungmoon lectures, she is described as the only begotten daughter of God. Originally, it was just the only begotten daughter. Well, that's obvious because, you know, parents only had one daughter. Elizabeth Haines is the only begotten daughter in the Haines family, you know. Okay, but when you say 'of God,' then it's a different dimension. You're moving into the Jesus Nicene Creed world then. So yeah, so I'm getting a lot of this from Franco. He sent me this; this is the Korean docs because I didn't know what it was in Korean, so he told me. Docs say 'ya,' yeah, it's Korean. Also, the Chinese there means 'only born daughter.' So that first bit of the word 'doc' means only; the next bit 'saeng' means born, and 'nyeo' is daughter. So that's what it is in Korean: only begotten daughter, only born daughter. 'Born' is 'begotten.' So that's why it's translated into English as 'only begotten daughter.' So the question is then, well, if Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, does that same thing apply to True Mother? Though was she conceived by a virgin birth or an Immaculate Conception? Is Hak Ja Han the third person of the Trinity like Jesus, the second person of the Trinity? Is she the third person of the Trinity, which means has she existed forever and then sent down to Earth like Christians believe Jesus always existed and he was sent down to Earth, the Virgin birth, and he lived on Earth and he went up and fit into the same place again? So is she, is Hak Ja Han the same substance as God? Has she existed forever? Is Hak Ja Han God? So, you know, if you call someone the only begotten daughter of God, it raises all these questions.

The questions surrounding Jesus as the only begotten Son of God lead to significant theological discussions. If one believes that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, they are essentially affirming the Nicene Creed. However, if one claims that Jesus' true mother is the only begotten daughter of God, it raises the question of whether she fits into the Nicene Creed as well. This theological dilemma became problematic for early Christians, particularly regarding the resurrection of Jesus as the second Adam, as mentioned in the Bible. St. Paul referred to Jesus as the last Adam, indicating a unique relationship with God that was not mirrored in Eve.

In the Bible, Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve, who were not the only begotten Son and Daughter of God. Jesus himself never claimed this title; it was largely influenced by the Gospel of John and Greek mythology. As a teenager raised as a Christian, I memorised the Nicene Creed, but my studies in biology led me to question the Virgin Birth and the concept of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. My religious teacher labelled me a heretic, but I was unbothered by such accusations. The Divine Principle asserts that Jesus was not God and does not support the Nicene Creed's claims about his divine nature.

If we discuss titles, we should not refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, as this implies adherence to the Nicene Creed. Instead, we should acknowledge that Jesus was the first person to establish a profound relationship with God. He had earthly parents and was not born of a virgin. In contrast, Christians believe otherwise. If we consider the concept of being the only begotten, it can be argued that Elizabeth shares the same substance as Ruth and myself, as she is our flesh and blood. Therefore, if someone is born, they share the same DNA as their parents. However, does Jesus share the same substance as God? God does not possess a physical body, making this a complex issue.

This theological debate has led to misunderstandings between Christians and Muslims, particularly regarding the concept of monotheism. The questions I raise are often overlooked in our spiritual community, and I find it essential to discuss them. One fundamental question is why we need teachings from the Nicene Creed, which is over 1,700 years old. While I have my own ideas about the purpose of these teachings, I prefer to discuss them informally rather than in a formal setting.

The distinction between Christians and Muslims regarding the title 'child of God' is significant. The Quran states that God does not have children, but this is often interpreted metaphorically. In the Hebrew Bible, the relationship between God and human beings is described as that of a parent and child, but it is not a literal interpretation. The notion that God 'begat' Adam and human beings is metaphorical, emphasising the relationship rather than suggesting a physical lineage. This contrasts with the Nicene Creed's literal interpretation of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, creating a theological gap between Jesus and all other human beings.

The idea that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God implies that no other human can attain the same relationship with God. This notion is problematic, as it contradicts the belief that all human beings can develop a personal relationship with God. The Divine Principle teaches that every individual should strive for this connection. Jesus stated, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.' However, once one reaches that connection, the need for a mediator diminishes, raising further questions about the role of mediators in our spiritual community.

The concept of mediators has evolved over time, particularly within the Catholic Church, where the Pope holds significant authority. The Reformation challenged this notion, asserting that every individual can receive personal grace and forgiveness from God, independent of the Pope's authority. This understanding has implications for how we view our relationship with God and the role of mediators in our spiritual lives. The idea that only Jesus can bridge the gap between humanity and God creates a hierarchy that the Divine Principle seeks to dismantle.

As we explore these theological questions, we must consider the implications of referring to True Mother as the only begotten daughter of God. This raises similar questions to those surrounding Jesus' title. True Mother is described as the first woman to receive Heavenly Parents' love, connected by blood lineage to God. This notion parallels the belief that Jesus was of God's blood lineage, as Mary was a virgin through the Holy Spirit. However, we must critically examine what 'blood lineage of God' truly means, as it is essential to ground our understanding in the Hebrew Bible and avoid abstract interpretations that stray from biblical teachings.

Exactly 400 years after Calvin wrote this particular book, the only begotten daughter was born on the foundation of Korean Christianity, which continues the legacy of the Protestant Reformation and the Presbyterian Church. John Knox went to Geneva and then back to Scotland, where he started a Presbyterian Church. The basic Calvinists and Presbyterians were instrumental in bringing Protestant Christianity to Korea. Calvin is referred to in the Divine Principle book, and figures such as John Calvin have propounded the doctrine of absolute and complete predestination, which is still widely believed today. Augustine was a predestinarian, and all Christians have been, but Calvin is particularly well known for this idea because he developed it further. This doctrine suggests that from the day you are born, God has already decided whether you will go to heaven or hell, independent of how you live your life. This concept of predestination has informed much of Christian theology, including the belief that the fall of Adam and Eve was predestined and part of God's plan, as was the crucifixion of Jesus, which allowed for the forgiveness of sin and salvation.

Calvin's teachings restate a theological perspective that many have held, which mistakenly suggests that the accomplishment of God's will depends solely on God's power and work. Without belief in predestination, one cannot accept that the crucifixion was God's will. This misunderstanding arises from ignorance of the true relationship between God's portion of responsibility and human responsibility in fulfilling the purpose of the Providence of restoration. The Divine Principle book itself is critical of John Calvin, and this perspective became the foundation of the Presbyterian Church, which started Presbyterianism in Korea. True Mother likely converted to become a Presbyterian, though I am not certain. This leads to the idea that what happened was meant to happen, including the fall and the crucifixion. Calvin's views suggest that Jews who do not believe in Jesus cannot re-enter the Covenant, leading to the traditional Christian view that they are destined for hell.

In 1976, I went as a pioneer to Inverness in the Highlands of Scotland. I was given a one-way ticket and tasked with fundraising, witnessing, and establishing a centre. I attended various Protestant denominations, including the Presbyterian Church founded by John Knox. In a traditional Presbyterian service, the focus is on the pulpit, which is centrally located and elevated, unlike the altar in a Catholic Church that is oriented towards Jerusalem. The service begins with a call to worship, followed by prayers, hymns, Bible readings, and a sermon that typically lasts about an hour. The congregation makes an offering, and the service concludes with a benediction and announcements. This structure may sound familiar to those who have attended a Unification Church service, as it shares similarities with the Presbyterian format.

I remember attending a new church in Chong Pyong while teaching there. The service was so similar to the traditional Presbyterian format that it bored me to tears, prompting me to leave halfway through. I sought out the Sunday school, only to find mostly children, with teenagers absent due to exam preparations—a common situation in Korea, often attributed to the pressures from 'tiger mothers.' This connection to the Presbyterian Church highlights our tradition, which stems from Scotland. True Mother referred to the Protestant Reformation and the Presbyterian Church, which continues this legacy. Christianity first came to Korea through the Nestorians around 1000 AD, but many Christians today do not recognise them as such due to their rejection of the Nicene Creed. The Nestorian Church, based in Baghdad, was the largest church in the ancient world and sent missionaries to various regions, including Korea.

The Catholic Jesuits later reintroduced Christianity to Korea in the late 18th century, but faced severe persecution in 1866, resulting in the martyrdom of about 10,000 Korean Catholics. During this time, a Welsh Presbyterian missionary went to China and discovered Korean Christians who lacked religious texts. He risked his life to bring Chinese books to Korea and was martyred for distributing Bibles. Another Scottish Presbyterian missionary translated the King James Bible into Korean, which became the standard text in Korea. The King James Version uniquely refers to Jesus as the 'only begotten son,' a phrase that has been altered in modern translations. Despite this, the Korean Bible retains the term in many versions, except for some more recent translations that have reverted to the original Greek text.

True Mother, as the only begotten daughter, made her own decisions and developed a natural, intuitive communication with God from birth, without formal learning. She made her own judgments and advanced her position of completion. Many people may feel they are children of God, but True Mother pursued this understanding actively. She often recounted how her mother told her she was the only begotten daughter of God, which shaped her perspective. As a child, I also spoke to God and questioned the Nicene Creed, feeling a natural inclination to engage in conversations about faith. Joseph Needleman, a scholar, wrote about how we breathe through our body and spirit, and when we begin to breathe through our spirit, we start asking about God. This innate curiosity about existence is common among children, who often drive their parents to distraction with their relentless questions.

My mother, born in Jerusalem to a Jewish family, was always inquisitive. In 1939, my grandparents brought her to England just before the war, leaving her at a Catholic convent for education. She learned Hebrew, Arabic, and German, and continued to ask questions, but was often told by the nuns that it was a mystery. This response, rather than providing clarity, made her feel uncomfortable, especially as a Jewish girl in a Catholic environment. Her spiritual development was affected by this, as she felt discouraged from asking questions in a religious context. When I asked questions, I often received similar responses, but I found that the Divine Principle offered much clearer explanations than what I had encountered in my Christian upbringing. I encourage my students to form their own faith rather than relying on secondhand beliefs, emphasising the importance of personal exploration in understanding faith.

From one thing to another, somebody put their hand up and asked, "What's the true theory of evolution or the theory of creation?" I said, "I can't answer that; you've got to work it out for yourself. I'm not going to tell you. You have to think about these things and come to your own conclusion to develop your own faith, which is about trusting God in your own way and speaking to God in your own way, relating to God in your way. You know, I say to people, when I used to teach in school, they used to call me Sir or Mr Haines in the classroom. I'm sure in the corridor they had lots of other names for me; they're too polite to say it. But you know, when they go home, your children don't say, "Oh, welcome home, Sir," no, they say, "Hi, Daddy, where have you been all day?" And your wife doesn't call you Daddy; she has other names for you. And then when I go and see my mother, my goodness, it's like I'm still six years old. "Oh, careful crossing the road!" But it's just one me. Everything is a relationship, which is different. It's neither here nor there what you call God or how you relate to God; it's your own personal faith, your own personal relationship with God. You can call God what you like. If you want to have an argument with God, read the Bible. Abraham, Moses, they all argue with God; they all have conversations with God. That's the way it should be. We should all have a personal relationship with God, discuss things with God, argue with God, and come to some kind of understanding.

So then God said to Moses, "Go into Egypt and take the people out of Egypt in slavery." Moses thought, "That's not possible; nobody's going to pay any attention to me. Why would they listen to me? I'm just an old man, a shepherd." Then they're going to say, "Well, who sent you?" God said, "Okay, tell them Yahweh sent you." Moses wondered how they were going to believe that. He said, "Oh, I can't speak; I'm a stutterer." God replied, "Your brother will speak for you." There was a negotiation; Moses negotiated with God before he could come up with something workable. God said, "Throw down your staff," and it turned into a snake. Moses thought, "Okay, I can play that trick on the Egyptians. I can show that I can do that sort of thing." He could turn a bit of water into blood and do all these things. He thought, "I can do those; those are going to win the argument. If I go around and do that sort of thing, that's viable, that's possible." But God is very idealistic; God is very abstract. You have to argue with God until you can come to something that is workable.

Abraham argued with God, Moses did, Jeremiah did, and Isaiah did. The wonderful thing about the Hebrew Bible is that all these arguments and discussions are recorded. The prophet said that to God, and God said that in reply. You don't see that in the New Testament. Obviously, Jesus has an incredibly profound relationship with God, but unfortunately, those conversations are not recorded in the New Testament; they're only recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. This is one of the reasons I love the Hebrew Bible so much. What God said and felt is all recorded there; it's not recorded in the New Testament. Time to stop for lunch. Have a good lunch, everyone. Those of you who are online, enjoy your lunch, whatever it is that you eat. What should we say? A prayer for lunch? Okay, all those online as well. Let's say grace before we eat. As Heavenly blessed Heavenly Parent, we thank you so much for being able to spend this time together as brothers and sisters and as friends who've known each other for many years. We're going to share our meal together, lunch together, and pray for all those who are watching online as well, that they can also have an enjoyable and blessed lunch and good conversations if they're watching together with others. I offer this prayer in my name, William Haines, the Cent bless family. Are you okay? Thank you, Joanna. Let's go down to the Chong prayer room. I keep getting these Korean words muddled up. Sorry, while you're here, please go to theun; it's unlocked.