Exploring the Chambumoron, Lectures and Discussion Part 2 - 30th November 2024

Peter said that Mother came from a prepared lineage but was born with original sin. That's what he believes: that she came from a prepared lineage and was born with original sin in Satan's lineage and has a fallen nature. This is based on a certain way of understanding the whole idea of Satan's lineage and original sin, which I think is very questionable. Anyway, she is now saying that Father was a sinner. I haven't come on to that in our Chongbo Ron; I haven't got there yet. But she says that she understands and has heard that Father was a sinner and that he was born with sin, and she was not. She's clearly turning against Father in telling these lies about him. There's stuff going on in speeches and things which I'm not getting anywhere near because we're still in the 1600 years ago, the Nine Creed, so I'm not going to respond to that today. No perfect person would tell lies about Father, which must mean she is not yet perfect. Well, okay, that's how he sees it.

William is being too literalist with the meaning of 'begotten'. God can beget physical beings, but he can also beget spiritual beings. That's not what the word 'beget' and 'begotten' mean. CS Lewis is very clear: to beget means this, and to create means that. You can't mix the meanings of these two words up. The word 'begotten', in my view, has a particular meaning in the English language. You can't say, 'Well, I don't like what exactly it means; I'm going to start using it to mean something which I want it to mean.' Then we end up with sheer confusion, and we can't have an intelligent conversation with each other.

Then he asks another question. William starts his talk by saying that the Divine Principle is not the truth, just a book discussing the principle. The Divine Principle itself says the Bible is an expression of the truth. It's not the truth any more than the Divine Principle book is the truth. The original Korean title was 'An Exposition of the Principle', which is a way to explain it or to apply it to certain Bible stories. If you look at the different versions of the Principle books, they're different. You can look at what we used to call the black book, which again had several editions. Then there's the Im book, Young Kim's books, which are also good. Then there's Young We Kim, who wrote study guides, and Reverend Yu, who did the ODP lectures, which were again different. Reverend Quark's level four was a lot clearer in some ways than the black book, and he was working on a level five that never got finished and published.

I used to get into conversations with Dr. Sonor about the Principle and say, 'Look, here's a chapter of the level five which I'm working on. What do you think?' I had a conversation with him afterwards after I'd read it because he didn't want to talk to me until I'd read it. I thought there were some really good points in there, and unfortunately, it didn't get to the point of being completed because I think it was a good book. I don't know where it is; I think Dr. Sonor probably died now. He was an old man then, so I don't know where the script is, which is a shame. Anyway, that's what I would say: it's a book which discusses the Principle. It's like lots of science books; new editions come out after new things are discovered and better ways to explain or describe things. Personally, I think the Divine Principle book is a work of genius, especially considering where it was written and when it was written, and the conditions of Korea after the war. Christianity was incredibly small and underdeveloped in Korea at that time. Unfortunately, there were no Jews living there, and there were no synagogues, so you couldn't engage in those kinds of conversations. But considering its time and place and who wrote it, I think it's a work of complete genius, but at the same time, it needs to be revised and improved.

Peter then goes on to say that he doesn't like theology. I don't teach this stuff at workshops; I teach more interesting Bible stories, which are much more relevant because they are about spiritual moral education. Theology isn't just about believing this and that. Then he ends up stating that something is true because of how it is phrased in the Bible. I don't think I said that. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's true. Christians believe it's in the Bible; therefore, it's in the word of God; therefore, it is true. That's a traditional Christian view of the Bible: this is the word of God; it's all true, and if you disagree with it, then you are rejecting the truth. That's not my approach to the Bible, and that's not my approach to anything, really. Everything's up for grabs for me.

Then he ends up stating that something is true because of how it's phrased in the Bible. No, I don't think I'm saying that. CS Lewis, yeah, he's a philosopher and a figure of English literature as well, so he explains what these words mean. That's the classic Orthodox Christian view of what the words mean. That's what's important, and I think what he said is true in the sense that it is really what the word 'beget' and 'begotten' means. That's what the word 'create' means, and that's how there is this distinction within Christian theology. Not that I agree with that, because I don't think Jesus was begotten, but that's what he said, and I think that's accurate in that sense. It's a true description of what Christians believe and what the language means.

Then he says that the Father said the Bible is full of errors and that she learns more truth from observing nature than reading the Bible. Well, yeah, I mean, the Bible itself is not... Jews don't say the Bible is the truth because there are a huge number of contradictions. The Bible is not a book; it's a collection of lots of different books that were written by different people. Some of it's poetry, some of it history, some of it's myth, some of it's law; it's all kinds of stuff in there written by different people, sometimes writing about the same events. You read the books of Kings; you read the books of Chronicles. Same historical period, but the things they say are not the same. So that's just the way it is. It's a collection of books, and you know, oh, that's a prophecy, that's a myth, that's a song, that's a poem. Are they true? When you look at a poem, you know, there are poems that say the moon is made of cream cheese. Is that true? It's a myth. It's trying to use language to describe something, and that's the way it is. We have language; we try to use the language we have to describe the world we live in and to understand the world we live in. The bigger your vocabulary is, the more you can actually understand it, and then you can communicate.

So, yeah, I would say the Father said the Bible's full of errors. I wouldn't disagree with that. You learn more truth from observing nature than reading the Bible. Again, the Bible's not a book about nature. There are some very simple things in there about nature, about God creating the world, about storms and all sorts of things that were going on and the way that they understood it in those days. So they said, you know, at the time of the flood, God sent a flood. At the time of the ten calamities during the time of Moses, God sent this, that, and the other. You think, well, is that true or not? The people who were writing at the time... People say, 'Oh, what's in the Bible is not true,' but if you actually look at the ten calamities, how do they start off again? I can't remember. The first was the blood. Oh yeah, thank you. The Nile turned to blood, and then the fish died, and the frogs came out, and then the flies. If you were alive three and a half thousand years ago, you would see all this stuff going on. Unfortunately, they didn't have something called CNN or the BBC; nobody knew that one of the largest volcanic explosions in the whole of human history was taking place in Santorini just off the coast of Greece. But they didn't know that. Nobody knew that. All they saw was all this stuff going on, and they just recorded it as they saw it and said, 'God did this and God did that.' Moses said, 'God's going to do this, God's going to do that.' But what's interesting is that when scientists look at that account, one thing leads to another. That's an accurate description of what would have happened three and a half thousand years ago as a result of the eruption of Mount Santorini. It's an accurate description, but of course, the people at the time could accurately describe what they were experiencing, but they didn't know why it was happening, so they said, 'Well, God is doing it.'

When there was that tsunami in the Indian Ocean that affected large parts of Indonesia and other places, there were some religious people, I think mostly Muslims, who thought, 'Oh, that's God punishing us because there are too many women lying around in bikinis.' So God decided, okay. When there was a huge earthquake that led to the destruction of Lisbon in the 1700s, nobody knew about earthquakes. It happened, and they couldn't understand. They thought, 'Why is God punishing us?' especially on a Sunday. They didn't know about tectonic movements and things, so they just attributed all these things to God. In the Bible, they didn't have modern science in the way that we do, which has only developed in the last few hundred years. They didn't know those sorts of things, so we just have to accept that it's not that what they're saying is not true; it's just that based upon what they were saying, it was true or accurate for them.

Naturally, Father had the opportunity to go and study modern science and solve it, which the authors of the Bible didn't have that opportunity. So, what was the last thing he says? Oh yeah, so it is this talk to establish what the Bible says or what the truth is about the difference between fallen children of God and Jesus, Father and Mother. Is this talk to establish what the Bible says? Well, that's part of it because if you want to understand phrases like 'the only begotten Son' and 'only begotten Daughter', where do these phrases come from? They come from the Bible. So if you want to understand them, you have to understand what the Bible says, whether you think what's written in the Bible is true or not is neither here nor there from that point of view. Just understand these phrases; we need to understand where they come from. As it says, discourse is about understanding the context, etc. So that's all I'm doing. Not many people do that, but that's what I do. And it's about the difference between fallen children of God and Jesus, Father and Mother. We might get to that at some point. Well, we haven't got anywhere near that yet.

Somebody else asked a question which I'm not going to answer because Ron said, 'If True Mother is not begotten, then who is she?' I'm not going to go there yet; we'll get on to that. She is who she is; that's all I can say. Sorry, that's a good phrase: she is who she is. You know, it's the way it is. I was a school teacher, and they used to call me 'Sir', and sometimes I had some less polite words for me when they were talking to themselves. When I went home, my kids called me 'Dad' or 'Daddy', and my wife calls me what she calls me, and my mother calls me, oh my goodness, etc. But that's it; just different names for the same person. That's the way it is. So, how was Jesus begotten? It says he's the only begotten Son of God, so how was he begotten? By God. The Nine Creed, which I mentioned before, was started by Emperor Constantine. He sat there as the chairman, more or less, and asked, 'For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.' So he came down from heaven means he already existed in heaven, and then he came down. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man. So how? By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and he was made man. The Holy Spirit, which is God, came down and had sex with Mary, who was a virgin, and that's how Jesus was conceived. That's why he's fully human and fully divine, because Mary was his mother; that's the fully human aspect. God was his father, and that's why it's the divine aspect: fully human, fully divine. The virgin birth of Jesus is the Christian and Islamic teaching. Muslims also believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was conceived by his mother Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit and without sexual intercourse. So somehow that happened; she became pregnant. This is what it says in the Quran: 'My Lord, how can I have a son?' This is what Mary is saying to Gabriel, who came to talk to her at the Annunciation. 'My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?' He replied, 'Even so, Allah creates what he wills. Then he decrees a matter; he says to it, 'Be,' and it comes to be.' So in that sense, yeah, Muslims all believe in the virgin birth as well because it's in the Quran. That's how he was begotten.

The Holy Spirit incarnated Mary, and they know the mystery without a human being involved. If you believe that this is what it means to be the only begotten Son of God, then logically, it also means to be the only begotten daughter of God. This is the essence of the Nicene Creed, which developed to settle arguments among Christians about who Jesus was. There were many disputes, and the next part of the Nicene Creed aimed to address these arguments, stating, 'We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ.' The original Apostles' Creed simply describes Jesus as Lord, but things became more complicated with the Nicene Creed, which specifies Jesus as 'the Son of God, begotten of the Father.' This term 'begotten' becomes very specific, indicating that Jesus is of the essence of the Father, 'God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.' This means that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, affirming that He is God.

The term 'consubstantial' was debated extensively in various councils, with some arguing for 'similar substance' instead of 'same substance.' This dispute was so intense that those who believed in 'similar substance' were expelled from the Empire. The Nicene Creed further states that Jesus was 'begotten of the Father before all worlds,' meaning that Jesus existed before the universe. This is supported by the Gospel of John, which states, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' Jesus, as the Word, was involved in creation, which is why the creed affirms that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds. This understanding of Jesus as the only begotten Son or daughter is crucial, and I believe it is often overlooked in other teachings.

The Virgin Birth is another interesting aspect mentioned in the Bible. The Angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a son named Jesus. When Mary questioned how this could happen since she was a virgin, the angel explained that the Holy Spirit would come upon her. This idea of the Virgin Birth is significant because it supports the belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, as He did not have a natural father. However, the inclusion of this narrative raises questions about its purpose. Why was the Virgin Birth emphasized before the Nicene Creed was written? The synoptic gospels mention the Virgin Birth but do not explicitly refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son. This omission suggests that the early disciples may have been hesitant to delve into the complexities surrounding Jesus's parentage.

The narrative surrounding Mary and the conception of Jesus is delicate. If asked about Jesus's father, Mary would have faced a challenging situation. The idea of a natural father could lead to scandalous implications, which is likely why the gospels opted to focus on the Holy Spirit's role in the Virgin Birth. This decision may have been made to preserve Mary's dignity and avoid controversy. Additionally, the phrase from Isaiah, 'The Virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and will call him Emmanuel,' was interpreted in a way that connected it to Jesus's birth. However, modern scholars argue that the original Hebrew term 'Alma' means 'young maiden' rather than 'virgin,' complicating the traditional understanding of the Virgin Birth.

The translation of 'Alma' to 'virgin' in Greek and Latin has led to misconceptions about Mary's status and the nature of Jesus's birth. This has resulted in a shift in modern biblical scholarship, which now often refers to Jesus as the 'only Son of God' rather than the 'only begotten Son.' The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the only begotten Son, yet it also acknowledges that Jesus had a mother and father, which raises questions about the belief in the Virgin Birth among His contemporaries. The disciples and those who knew Jesus did not necessarily subscribe to the idea of a Virgin Birth, as they recognized Him as the son of Joseph and Mary.

For Christians, Jesus is first and foremost the Son of God, the only begotten Son, and the second person of the Trinity. He is God, having existed from the very beginning. The concept of the Trinity can be confusing, especially for Muslims, who may perceive it as a belief in three gods. However, Christians are monotheists, believing in one God who manifests in three persons. The term 'person' in this context derives from the Latin 'persona,' meaning mask or character, rather than referring to individual beings. Thus, the Trinity represents one God with three distinct aspects: God the Father, the creator; God the Son, the incarnation of God active in the world; and God the Holy Spirit, the non-physical presence of God.

The Holy Spirit is often described as God's feminine aspect, and it plays a significant role in the Jewish and Christian understanding of God's presence in the world. Jesus, being a Jew, adhered to monotheism and did not identify as a Christian. He instructed His disciples to preach about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, the name Yahweh is sacred and not spoken, leading to the use of 'the Lord' in translations. The Holy Spirit, as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, signifies God's active presence, descending upon prophets and blessing individuals. This understanding aligns with experiences in Pentecostal churches, where individuals feel filled with the Holy Spirit and inspired to preach. The term 'spirit' in Hebrew encompasses both masculine and feminine qualities, reflecting the complexity of God's nature.

The Holy Spirit can be understood in different ways across various religious traditions. In Christianity, Jesus, who was a Jew, spoke of the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost, a significant Jewish festival. After His Ascension, He promised that the Holy Spirit would come down, filling the disciples with the Spirit and transforming their lives. This led to discussions among early Christians about the nature of the Holy Spirit, questioning whether it was God the Father, God the Son, or something else entirely. They eventually described the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, a different aspect of God that works in the world, rather than a human being or a distinct person. This understanding aligns with the traditional Jewish view of the Holy Spirit as a means through which God communicates with humanity, as reflected in the Nicene Creed, which mentions the Holy Spirit speaking through the prophets.

In the Divine Principle, the interpretation of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit differs from traditional Christian views. The text presents a unique understanding of these concepts, which can lead to varied interpretations among different Christian denominations. For instance, in Pentecostal churches, the presence of the Holy Spirit is often felt strongly, creating a sense of divine connection that is distinct from the traditional views of God as the creator or Jesus as the incarnate Son. This experience of the Holy Spirit is not about personhood but rather about feeling God's presence in a profound way. Many individuals, including myself, have experienced moments while teaching where it feels as though the Holy Spirit is guiding the words being spoken, leading to insights that were previously unknown to the speaker.

A controversial phrase found in the New Testament states that every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This raises questions about the nature of forgiveness and the consequences of speaking against the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, it is understood that God forgives sins committed against Him, but not those against other people. In Judaism and Islam, one must seek forgiveness from the person wronged, not just from God. This principle is reflected in the Jewish practice before Yom Kippur, where individuals reflect on their actions and seek forgiveness from those they have offended. The idea is that one must make amends with others before seeking divine forgiveness.

When discussing the implications of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it is essential to consider the role of conscience. If one ignores the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they may damage their conscience and soul. This concept is significant in understanding the nature of sin and forgiveness. Father often spoke about the importance of maintaining a clear conscience and the need to address one's wrongdoings rather than simply seeking forgiveness from God. If one fails to listen to their conscience and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, they may find themselves in a state of moral decay, leading to a hardened heart that no longer feels guilt or remorse for their actions. This is a critical aspect of traditional Christian understanding regarding the relationship between the Holy Spirit and personal accountability.

The question of True Mother as the only begotten daughter is a complex one. Some have drawn parallels between the roles of Adam and Eve and the need for a second Eve, similar to how Jesus is referred to as the second Adam. This perspective suggests that True Mother represents the unfallen Eve, fulfilling a role that was left unfulfilled in the biblical narrative. While this understanding aligns with certain Christian theological frameworks, it diverges from traditional Jewish interpretations, which do not emphasize the Adam and Eve story in the same way. The concept of the Messiah also varies significantly across religious traditions, with each faith having its unique understanding of the term.

Speculation exists regarding whether Jesus had a wife or family, as it was customary for Jewish teachers to marry at a young age. Some theories suggest that Jesus may have been married, but these ideas are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Historical context, such as the destruction of the temple and the persecution of Jesus' family, may have influenced the absence of such narratives in early Christian texts. Ultimately, while these discussions are intriguing, they remain speculative and highlight the complexities of interpreting religious texts and traditions.

The Fini code attempts to locate the descendants of Jesus somewhere in France. This idea has been around for a thousand years, suggesting that there was a family descended from Jesus living in southern France. However, the Catholic Church historically wiped out these individuals, known as the Albigensians, during a horrendous Crusade against fellow Christians. There is also speculation about other descendants of Jesus, but we cannot know for certain, as we lack Jesus's DNA and that of any possible descendants. People often claim that Jesus had to be descended from Judah, but the reality is that all Jews are descended from Judah, as he was a tribe in the southern Kingdom. The other ten tribes were deported by the Babylonians and settled in what is now modern-day Iraq and other regions.

The Hebrew word 'Messiah' simply means 'anointed'. Samuel was the first to anoint Saul, and then he anointed David, who was filled with the Holy Spirit and wrote the Psalms. The depth and beauty of the Psalms, which have been sung for over three thousand years, reflect a remarkable political culture where a king could produce such profound music. Solomon, David's son, wrote the Proverbs, showcasing an incredibly high culture that encompassed spiritual, religious, political, and economic aspects. Solomon was also anointed and, like all kings, was considered a Messiah at his coronation. This anointing is a private affair, often conducted behind a curtain, as seen in the coronation of King Charles, who is also viewed as the national Messiah.

The concept of the national Messiah is significant in how these figures perceive their roles. The Queen, for instance, saw herself as a national Messiah, which influenced her behaviour and interactions with various communities. This sense of duty is reflected in the way they engage with different religious and social groups. When we sing national anthems like 'God Save the King', we express a desire for the king to maintain a relationship with God. The coronation ceremony is deeply religious, serving to remind the king of his responsibilities and the expectations placed upon him. We do not want a dictator; rather, we seek a ruler who governs according to the biblical understanding of kingship, which is far more profound than any constitutional framework.

Many people are surprised by the religious nature of the coronation, especially since the last one was 70 years ago. This shock reflects a disconnect with modern secular culture and an ignorance of how the British monarchy operates. Unlike other European royal families, which faced dire consequences, the British royal family has maintained its position due to a different understanding of kingship and public expectation. A friend from Russia once remarked on the grandeur of her country's royal palaces, but I pointed out that such opulence did not guarantee stability or longevity for their monarchy. The British system, rooted in biblical tradition, ensures that coronations are not merely ceremonial but are imbued with meaning and expectation.

The historical context of kingship in Britain contrasts sharply with the divine right of kings espoused by figures like Charles I, who drew inspiration from French ideas. The notion that 'the state is me' led to disastrous outcomes for many monarchs. The British monarchy, however, has evolved through a framework that emphasises accountability to the people, shaped by biblical principles. This is why the coronation ceremony is so significant; it serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with the crown. As we reflect on these themes, I encourage questions and discussions, as they enrich our understanding of this complex discourse.