Why Do Most All Christians Reject Any Form Of Preexistence?

[Mainer]

It is inclusive enough. The second clause is written to reinforce the first clause, not to limit it. "All things" means "all things," and the category of "things not made" includes one being: God Himself, the Unmade Maker. We must not interpret the second part of the sentence in a way that leads us to deny the first part.

I have read D&C. The verse you cite is the basis of my whole point. If man was in the beginning with God (and also has a separate existence) God has no authority over him since man's existence is independant of Him.

If you are not convinced by John, Colossians 1:15 teaches the same thing overwelmingly:

"By him all things were created that are in heaven and that are in the earth."

This includes human souls. It also rules out "being made" as coming to earth, since it includes all things in heaven.

"Visible and invisible"

This includes human souls.

"Whether thy be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers."

This refers to the hosts angels in heaven, which per preexistence doctrine would include human souls.

"All things were created by Him and for him and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

No qualifications on this statement.

I am aware that LDS theology teaches this, but my point is that the concept of human existence in LDS theology provides no basis for God's authority to lay out such a plan. This is especially evident if there was a time in ages past when God himself was unorganized matter like us. Why should another piece of matter from another part fo the universe that I do not need to exist dictate the terms of my life? Whence gets he this authority? By contrast, a God who did create me ex nihilo can claim any power over me at all, since I owe all to him.

Everything that God did not create is something we have no cause the prasie Him for or thank Him for and for which we owe Him no obedience. I know that LDS theology does not teach this, but it would teach that if it were consistent with itself, for it is the only reasonable conclusion one could draw from such premises.

Excellent!

[Geocacher]

Below is what I have gotten out of close to 25 years of Near Death Experience studies, and does not reflect on actual LDS beliefs:

Funny how people think in only human terms, since I believe that God alone may have given the formless spirits, spirit bodies, without the need of a heavenly mother. I believe that GOD started out with all the formless spirits, and gave them all spirit bodies, in the shape of man, then at some point there became a differentiation between the spirits and the Angels in Heaven, where we as spirits were to be born to the Earth into Mortal bodies, and the Angels were to perform other higher duties in Heaven. Then the Earth was created for our 'hoped for' advancement.

The very wicked after death, I believe, the ones that are not recoverable back into the light, these spirits will die a 2nd death, loosing their spirit bodies, then becoming formless again, this after the second judgement.

Sorry if I am off track, just my thoughts here.

[Asaph]

Below is what I have gotten out of close to 25 years of Near Death Experience studies, and does not reflect on actual LDS beliefs:

Funny how people think in only human terms, since I believe that God alone may have given the formless spirits, spirit bodies, without the need of a heavenly mother.

So they still do teach it!

At any rate - I had a near death experience once. I was in a terrible car accident and came to in the hospital - everything else was vision to me. It was not pleasant. I saw a neurologist as I got a fracutured skull and she explained that all of what I remember seeing and feeling was easily explainable in terms of what was happening to me physically.

This makes me think that these experiences are not spritual phenomenon.

Agape

Asaph

[cjcampbell]

The question is in error. "Most all" Christians do not reject any form of pre-mortal existence. Christian literature is full of references to returning to that God which sent us. Pope Benedict himself has often spoke of a return go God -- not in the sense of a return to religion, but an actual return to the presence of God. If we are sent, from where can we have been sent except from a pre-mortal existence?

The majority of Christians teach some sort of pre-mortal existence, if no more than the very common belief that God creates a soul for each person before he is born. It is belief in the pre-existence that is one of the driving forces of Christian opposition to abortion.

[Son]

Because most Christians aren't.

In order to know anything, we must experience it.

We know about many things.

We know very little.

It is given to abide in us.............THE RECORD OF HEAVEN.

This can only be given by seeking first the kingdom, and learning the voice of God.

[Beowulf]

At least one person here in this thread asserted that the Bible never teaches Pre-Existence. While we LDS believe that the Pre-Existence is in evidence all through the Bible, both Old and New Testament, I recognize that most of these verses are debatable, based on belief (or not) in a pre-Existence.

Some examples include: Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee. Zechariah 12:1 The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him. Rom 8:29 For whom He did foreknow, He did also predestinate. Eph. 1:4 Chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.

As you can see, these depend on whether God is merely viewing the future Earth, or actually KNOWS these spirits in the Pre-Mortal world. LDS naturally prefer the latter explanation.

But two other verses are harder to argue away: Eccl 12:7 The spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Here is a RETURN... from where, if not from God's presence in the pre-existence?)

John 9:2 Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

This one is the most interesting, because belief in a Pre-Existence is presumed by all involved in this conversation. No one questions the premise at all. Not the disciples, not Christ, not even any bystanders.

Beowulf

[freakin a man]

Ok so if Col 1:16 means that Jesus created everything because it says "all things" and all things means everything including Satan, angels, ect, then we can say that those that overcome will inherit everything including Satan, angels, ect because in Rev 21:7 it says "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Right? Since all things in Col 1:16 means "everything" then all things in Rev 21:7 means everything. Now, I wonder why any overcomer would want to inherit Satan.

[Neighbor]

I have studied Near Death Experiences for well over 20 years, and many NDE's talk about spirits waiting to be born, but what I have seen is that most Trinitarian Christians don't believe in any existence prior to Earth life.

The place I visit alot is the Catholic dot com forums in the non-catholic religions section, and basically they all say that we had no existence prior to Earth life, but what my thing is, is that if there was no preexistence, how are we born into an Earth life, especially in cases of a rape? Also if they go against a preexistence, how can they prove of a life after death.

For much of my 47 years I was aware of the idea that I did preexist my body in some form, but not until I studied Near Death Experiences for so long, did I become comfortable with the actual process of dying in itself, for which the church does not say anything about that. Funny that the church does not say much about what it is like to die, but it seems like only the Mormon church fits with what Near Death Experiences have said for eons.

-

Geoff

It isn't because of lack of personal experience, it is out of reverence for Jesus claim to be the only one from heaven, that He is of heaven and we are of the earth.

It comes to how much stock you put in what Jesus taught.

[ed2276]

No, Jesus did not create the Father. I believe that the "most all Christians" referred to in the OP would be Trinitarians and would believe that Jesus and the Father are the same God. So when Col 1:16 and John 1:3 speak of Jesus creating, it does not mean He created Himself. We "most all Christian" believe that God had no beginning. Everything else did have a beginning.

You believe that Jesus created us spiritually before we came to earth? Is that broadly accepted by LDS?

I don't believe that Jesus created our spirits , but that we were born of heavenly parents , Father and Mother. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father of our spirits. I do believe that all things related to our temporal existence were first created by Jesus spiritually , under a grant of power from the Father. Thereafter , that which was spirit was made temporal under Jesus' direction.

[Jersey Girl]

It isn't because of lack of personal experience, it is out of reverence for Jesus claim to be the only one from heaven, that He is of heaven and we are of the earth.

It comes to how much stock you put in what Jesus taught.

Neighbor,

I'm not much for pulling scripture out of context but, how would you address this in light of what you said above?

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Even though I'm not LDS, I can see how the above could be interpreted in the context of pre-existence.

Jersey Girl

[soren]

The question is in error. "Most all" Christians do not reject any form of pre-mortal existence. Christian literature is full of references to returning to that God which sent us. Pope Benedict himself has often spoke of a return go God -- not in the sense of a return to religion, but an actual return to the presence of God. If we are sent, from where can we have been sent except from a pre-mortal existence?

God is the origin of all spirit because he created them ex nihilo. Thus any motion toward God is a return since the object is moving to its source. There is no way Pope Benedict means what you say.

The majority of Christians teach some sort of pre-mortal existence, if no more than the very common belief that God creates a soul for each person before he is born. It is belief in the pre-existence that is one of the driving forces of Christian opposition to abortion.

The soul is created before birth, because it is created at conception, which is not premortal.

[soren]

At least one person here in this thread asserted that the Bible never teaches Pre-Existence. While we LDS believe that the Pre-Existence is in evidence all through the Bible, both Old and New Testament, I recognize that most of these verses are debatable, based on belief (or not) in a pre-Existence.

They are debatable based on whether one presupposes an infinite or finite conception of divine knowledge.

Some examples include: Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee.

For this to even imply a preexistence, one must presuppose that God's knowledge of Jeremiah was contingent on Jeremiah's present existence. But to presuppose that would impute limitation to divine knowledge. God's knows all all thing before they happen. Ps. 147:5 says "Great is our Lord and of great power. His understanding is infinite." If God need Jeremiah to be personally present to know him, then God's understanding is contingent and therefore limited. To make a case for this reading, you must justify why God, who knows all things before they happen should have such limitation.

Zechariah 12:1 The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him.

This is completely consistent with saying that the soul is created simultaneously with the body.

Rom 8:29 For whom He did foreknow, He did also predestinate.

Eph. 1:4 Chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.

This is the same fallacy as the use of the Jeremiah text. Because God has perfect infinte knowledge of all thing to come he is also able to make sovereign decisions ahead of time. We see this clearly taught in Is. 46:9-10: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (The context of this verse is important, as it is part of a long section that talks about the uniqueness of divine foreknowledge.)

As you can see, these depend on whether God is merely viewing the future Earth, or actually KNOWS these spirits in the Pre-Mortal world. LDS naturally prefer the latter explanation.

Those are not only options. The third option is that God is timeless and so all things are present to him at once.

But two other verses are harder to argue away: Eccl 12:7 The spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Here is a RETURN... from where, if not from God's presence in the pre-existence?)

A return is a motion to a thing's source. If God created our spirits

at any time mortal or premortal

then any motion by the soul toward God is a return, whether that motion be repentance, learning of God, or in that case of this verse, entering heaven.

John 9:2 Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

This one is the most interesting, because belief in a Pre-Existence is presumed by all involved in this conversation. No one questions the premise at all. Not the disciples, not Christ, not even any bystanders.

That is one possible understadning that the disciples could have, but not the only one. They could be thinking of a sin before birth but after conception, or more likely that he was punished through God's foreknowledge of his sin. These may seem to you like absurd thoughts, but if you consider the way God metes out punishment to generations in the OT, it is not far-fetched.

In any case, this is a question asked by Christ's disciples to which the answer is "Nobody sinned." I think it would be hard to draw a premortal existence doctrine out of that answer.

[soren]

Ok so if Col 1:16 means that Jesus created everything because it says "all things" and all things means everything including Satan, angels, ect, then we can say that those that overcome will inherit everything including Satan, angels, ect because in Rev 21:7 it says "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Right? Since all things in Col 1:16 means "everything" then all things in Rev 21:7 means everything. Now, I wonder why any overcomer would want to inherit Satan.

The saints will stand in judgment over the angels: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6:3) This means the saints will have an inherited rulership over Satan, which they will excerise by condemning Him unto God's glory.

This is a very good question, but it touches more on the mystery of how God is glorified by the damnation of certain souls than on the issue of what things God created.

[soren]

I don't believe that Jesus created our spirits , but that we were born of heavenly parents , Father and Mother. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father of our spirits. I do believe that all things related to our temporal existence were first created by Jesus spiritually , under a grant of power from the Father. Thereafter , that which was spirit was made temporal under Jesus' direction.

By whom were these spiritual things made temporal?

[Neighbor]

Neighbor,

I'm not much for pulling scripture out of context but, how would you address this in light of what you said above?

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Even though I'm not LDS, I can see how the above could be interpreted in the context of pre-existence.

Jersey Girl

It was God who has the knowing. God also knows the future. God knows what we think before we do. No prophecy is of private interpretation, for God gives the interpretation.

What is said in Jeremiah cannot be taken apart from what Jesus said or even what God conversed with Job about in asking Job questions. If the LDS view is correct it would seem that Job would have been able to give God reply. Don't you think that would have been helpful to the LDS position? Yet in that Job did not know, Job instead 'saw God face to face' in that Job realized the vast difference in his position in the creation of God. Quite different than the 'God was more intellegent' lines, don't you think?

[soren]

It was God who has the knowing. God also knows the future. God knows what we think before we do.

Ok.

No prophecy is of private interpretation, for God gives the interpretation.

I don't think that's quite what 1 Peter 1:20 is saying. The verse means that no prophecy comes about by private interpretation. In fact, the verb ginetai (came about) occurs in the Greek of this sentence, though the KJV translation misses it. What Peter is saying is that the prophets who brought the scripture into the world were not editors of what the Holy spirit inspired. This strongly supports the god-breathed status of scripture, but it does not exclude interpretation by its readers. After all, your addition "for God gives the interpretation" is itself and a private interpretation of the verse.

Further, if I were a Latter-day Saint, I would respond that a prophet's interpretation of scripture is not private but public. In fact, their doctrine teaches that a prophet has a special authority to receive revelation on behalf of the whole Church, thais, publicly. So even then the private interpretation argument falls short fo the mark.

What is said in Jeremiah cannot be taken apart from what Jesus said or even what God conversed with Job about in asking Job questions. If the LDS view is correct it would seem that Job would have been able to give God reply. Don't you think that would have been helpful to the LDS position? Yet in that Job did not know, Job instead 'saw God face to face' in that Job realized the vast difference in his position in the creation of God. Quite different than the 'God was more intellegent' lines, don't you think?

True, indeed, but why bring up Job? The question was about Jeremiah.

[thesometimesaint]

Why Do Most All Christians Reject Any Form Of Preexistence?

God made me this way out of nothing. So He is responsible for what I am.

[Eteponge]

All of the very obvious referances to pre-existence in Scripture simply awe those of us who accept them for what they clearly suggest. However, those who wish to deny the doctrine of pre-existence due to Emperor Justinian's meddlings with Christian Doctrine in 545 AD banning the doctrine of pre-existence to the extreme duress of the Pope, merely alternatively explain those verses and subjectively insert that their interpretation is above our own, when any logical person reading those verses can see that they ARE highly suggestive of pre-existence, yet in all fairness *can* be interpreted in more than one way. However, it can be pointed out that a number of Ancient Jews, Ancient Jewish Writings, Ancient Jewish Apocrypha, Early Jewish Kabbalah, Etc, interpreted those exact same verses as refering to pre-existence, and can referance Early Christian Writings, Early Christian Apocrypha, Early Christian Mysticism, and Writings of Early Christian Figures such as Origen, who accepted those verses as clearly refering to such, in defense in addition to the verses themselves.

Regardless, I'm reminded of how all Christians look to the prophetic fulfillments in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ's coming, life, death, and resurrection, yet the Mainstream Jews will read those *exact same verses* and interpret them *totally differently*, and claim that their interpretation is superior and the only correct one, and vise versa, just like Mainstream Emperor Justinian Decree Accepting Christians do with the verses refering to pre-existence.

â??If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).â?

That's the work of interferance by Emperor Justinian, in 545 AD, the TRUE REASON that Mainstream Christians "traditionally" do not accept pre-existence. Reminds me very well of what Jesus Christ said to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, something about Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and their Creeds being an abomination in his sight?

[soren]

All of the very obvious referances to pre-existence in Scripture simply awe those of us who accept them for what they clearly suggest. However, those who wish to deny the doctrine of pre-existence due to Emperor Justinian's meddlings with Christian Doctrine in 545 AD banning the doctrine of pre-existence to the extreme duress of the Pope, merely alternatively explain those verses and subjectively insert that their interpretation is above our own, when any logical person reading those verses can see that they ARE highly suggestive of pre-existence, yet in all fairness *can* be interpreted in more than one way.

To make the topic of this discussion clear let me state my thesis as strongly as possible. I am not merely claiming that the verses regarding divine foreknowledge, particularly Jeremiah 1:5, do not necessarily imply preexistence. I am going farther than that. I claiming that even a suggestion of premortal existence is an impossible interpretation of the text. That different people interpret scripture differently does not always mean that certain interpretations cannot be ruled out. In this case in particular, "you existed before you were formed in the belly" is not among the possible ideas that can be drawn from the text.

Now you have not argued against any of the reasoning I and others have put forward to support this. You have simply counterasserted that a clear suggestion is there. But on what basis is such a suggestion clear? I have claimed that finding such an implication presupposes that God's knowledge of a person is contingent upon that person's existence in time. For if God's knowledge were indeed contingent on that, the verse would not merely "suggest," but actually prove Jeremiah's preexistence. If, however, it were not the case, and God's knowledge of Jeremiah existed independently of Jeremiah's existence in time, then God knowing him gives us no information about the time of Jeremiah's existence. These, then are our options: either the verse proves the preexistence or it provides no evidence either way. Mere "suggestion" is actually ruled out.

Now, we have already seen that the nature of God's knowledge is "infinite" and encompasses future events, and much more scriptural evidence can be adduced to that effect. This being the case, it is impossible to prove the existence of Jeremiah from God's knowledge (since God would know him if he existed or not) and, because we have ruled out suggestion, the only remaining option is that the verse provides no evidence. To assert either a doctrine of preexistence or a denial of it goes beyond what can be reasonably inferred. Any statement one way or the other has to be read into the text.

Now you say the suggestion here is clear. If it is, then you should be able to point out a clear error in my reasoning.

However, it can be pointed out that a number of Ancient Jews, Ancient Jewish Writings, Ancient Jewish Apocrypha, Early Jewish Kabbalah, Etc, interpreted those exact same verses as refering to pre-existence, and can referance Early Christian Writings, Early Christian Apocrypha, Early Christian Mysticism, and Writings of Early Christian Figures such as Origen, who accepted those verses as clearly refering to such, in defense in addition to the verses themselves.

Regardless, I'm reminded of how all Christians look to the prophetic fulfillments in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ's coming, life, death, and resurrection, yet the Mainstream Jews will read those *exact same verses* and interpret them *totally differently*, and claim that their interpretation is superior and the only correct one, and vise versa, just like Mainstream Emperor Justinian Decree Accepting Christians do with the verses refering to pre-existence.

â??If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).â?

That's the work of interferance by Emperor Justinian, in 545 AD, the TRUE REASON that Mainstream Christians "traditionally" do not accept pre-existence.

I'd rather have a conversation about preexistence than the Great Apostasy, at least on this thread. Does it occur to you at all that the normative rejection of preexistence by Christians might, just might, have to do with belief in Christ as creator of "all things?" That honest to goodness we actually think that and yo wholly misjudge us in attributing different reasons for it to us? Might it be possible that our reasons for rejecting preexistence actually are the reasons we have expressed above and with which you have not even interacted?

Reminds me very well of what Jesus Christ said to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, something about Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and their Creeds being an abomination in his sight?

Teaching "doctrines of men" is again an assertion and not an argument. Considering that everyone here who has been opposing preexitence so far has reasoned from scripture only, this charge falls flat. Particularly to my ears, since I formerly accepted preexistence on the basis of Platonic philosophy and later swallowed my pride by rejecting it (and several other of my philosophical preferences) in obedience to my Church! Or did you read my first post where I talked about that?

If you want a doctrine of men, it is the assertion that, contra Ps. 147:5, Is. 46:9-10, etc., God's knowledge has the same mode of limitation that man's does. It is good to have the revealed doctrine of "infinite understanding" to counteract such small notions.

[Eteponge]

soren: The FAIR LDS Article "Mormonism 201" in Chapter 4 "Preexistence and the Second Estate" already adaquetely answers your above assertions and counters them with reputable scholarly sources, reputable ancient jewish & early christian historical sources, and sound exegesis from the biblical text itself ...

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20104.html

Here are the most important excerpted highlights...

In the case of Jeremiah 1:5, the authors assert that the scripture is a reference to God's foreknowledge, and not to a personal knowledge of humans. Granting that God has limitless foreknowledge does not preclude a personal knowledge of individual humans, however. McKeever and Johnson do not refute the possibility of such knowledge, instead opting to say (in effect) "No, that can't be it." Such assertions, while they may be comforting to the authors and sufficient in their own estimation, do not preclude the acceptability of the LDS interpretation of the scripture at hand.

It is hard to deny the specificity of words used in the Jeremiah passage:

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Notice three key words here: knew, sanctified, and ordained. The wording itself indicates that God literally knew Jeremiah and was familiar with his spiritual attitudes and abilities. In addition, God sanctified Jeremiah, a description not of foreknowledge but of an actual event with participants present. The process of sanctification, or setting something apart as holy, by definition requires that something (such as Jeremiah himself) be present to be set apart. Likewise, the act of ordaining a personâ??in this case a prophetâ??requires that the individual be present. These actsâ??sanctification and ordinationâ??are not mental exercises, but actual events.

Indeed, other modern Christian scholars have chosen to acknowledge the claim that Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of more than mere foreknowledge. In reference to the concept of premortal life, William de Arteaga stated:

"This question was hotly debated by Christians of late antiquity, and the faction of the Church which was bitterly opposed to preexistence gained the upper hand. By the sixth century belief in preexistence was declared heresy. All of this is quite astonishing in view of the clear and repeated biblical evidence for preexistence."9

The event referred to in the sixth century was an edict by Pope Vigilius in 543 AD that rejected the doctrine of preexistence taught by Origen of Alexandria. Historical records indicate that the edict, called Anathemas Against Origen, was actually penned by the Roman emperor, Justinian,10 and signed by the pope and other bishops present at the Second Council of Constantinople.11 The official document labeled Origen's teachings heresy and forbid them being taught in the church.

It is certainly true that the LDS are not the only people to believe in a premortal life. In fact, many scholars (both LDS and non-LDS) find strong evidence for a belief in premortal life in the writings and teachings of the early Christian fathers. While these teachings may have been dropped from the rote canon of the church, there is little doubt that they were understood and espoused from the earliest recorded times.

For instance, Clement of Alexandria, commenting on the scriptural passage in Jeremiah 1:5 (which is also addressed more fully in the next section), generalized the doctrine as having universal application. He wrote:

"â?¦the Logos is not to be despised as something new, for even in Jeremiah the Lord says, 'Say not "I am too young," for before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and before thou camest forth from thy mother I sanctified thee.' It is possible that in speaking these things the prophet is referring to us, as being known to God as faithful before the foundation of the world."6

Another church father that spoke directly to the idea of a premortal existence was Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185â??254 AD). Writing in the third century, he stated a belief that differences evident among men on earth were attributable to differences in rank and glory attained by those men as premortal angels. According to Origen, God could not be viewed as "no respecter of persons" without such a premortal existence. In fact, if the differences of men on earth were not related in some way to our premortal condition, then God could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. Origen felt that just as there would a judgment after this life, that a sort of judgment had already taken place based on our premortal merit, with the result being the station to which we were appointed in this life. As an example of this concept supported in the Bible, Origen referred to the Old Testament story of Jacob being preferred over Esau. Why was this so? According to Origen, because "we believe that he was even then chosen by God because of merits acquired before this life."7

Belief in a premortal life was not confined to various early church fathers. In the course of his writings the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the beliefs of the Essenes. He reported they believed "that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever." He further related that the Essenes believed that the souls of men "are united to their bodies as in prisons" and that when the spirits are set free they are "released from a long bondage" and ascend heavenward with great rejoicing.8 Josephus' description of Essene doctrine has surely taken on greater validity in light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Together these records provide primary evidence that contemporaries of Christ and the apostles believed in a premortal lifeâ??a belief that is validated by the Bible itself, as discussed in the following section.

These historical citations are just the tip of the iceberg. Serious students of the topic can find additional information that verifies that ancient Christians and Jews understood and accepted the concept of premortal existence. While knowing that the concept has historical roots does not prove the concept to be true, it certainly counteracts the fallacious claim that the teachings of the LDS on the topic are new, heretical, or dangerous.

There are many additional examples given in the full above text and other similar sources. The above represents a fairly small amount of excerpts for a potentially lengthy subject such as this entails.

Regardless, here are several other brief examples I've compiled from several different online lists of sources regarding Pre-Existence...

Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau even before they were born. These verses are highly suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau. Origen taught that the pre-existence of souls can be found in both the Old and New Testaments in the story of Esau and Jacob and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born. (Malachi 1:2-3) (Romans 9:11-24).

"He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it." - Jesus Christ, Revelation 3:12

Jesus is stating that people were once inhabitants of the temple of God. This is strongly suggestive of pre-existence.

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

The keyword in this verse is "return". In order for something to return to anything it would have had to be with it previously. So the only way our spirits could return to God is if our spirits had lived with God at a prior time.

Origen took the following Bible verse as proof of pre-existence:

"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love." (Ephesians 1:4)

The above verse reveals God choosing people before the world existed and before they could have physically been born. This suggests the people the verse is referring to, must have existed somewhere before.

And a REALLY BIG ONE if you happen to be Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox and accept the Deuterocanonicals...

"As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)

The whole "It's merely God's Foreknowledge, nothing more!" argument IMHO falls apart when you read reputable scholarly sources, reputable ancient jewish & early christian historical sources, and examine the text itself in exegesis in light of that. You scream "Foreknowledge!", we scream, "Preexistence!", you say it cannot be interpreted as anything other than foreknowledge, we crank out the reputable sources, both historical, scholarly, and otherwise, that highly suggest otherwise.

You suggest that "preexistence" somehow undermines God, regardless of the fact that even though we all came forth from God as Individual Conscious Emanations after his form and essence, sharing the same Spirit and Life-Breath with him (would not that make us a part of His essence that which of his Spirit He breathed into Adam?), that clearly DOES NOT MEAN that we first "existed" merely at conception. That's something you cannot objectively prove, even if your arguments of "foreknowledge" had ground, the idea that we just "poofed" as God-Breathed Spirits at birth.

The straw man here seems to be your suggesting that if "Preexistence" exists, then God must somehow be dumb and without foreknowledge. That's not even worthy to respond to, IMHO, as it's just downright silly.

[Beowulf]

I was about to respond, since I was the one who brought up Jeremiah 1:5 in the first place, but Eteponge has explained it to my satisfaction...

To sum up: Perfect foreknowledge does not contradict or exclude Pre-existence.

Beowulf

[cjcampbell]

God is the origin of all spirit because he created them ex nihilo. Thus any motion toward God is a return since the object is moving to its source. There is no way Pope Benedict means what you say.

The soul is created before birth, because it is created at conception, which is not premortal.

Really? How do you explain the existence of Satan? Did God deliberately create imperfect beings so that He would have someone to cast into Hell for His own entertainment? What does that say about a god like that and what sort of judgment would such a god merit?

[PacMan]

soren,

You made the comment a while back, "

"I have read D&C. The verse you cite is the basis of my whole point. If man was in the beginning with God (and also has a separate existence) God has no authority over him since man's existence is independant of Him."

Your logic is lacking, at best. It's like saying that because my mother gave birth to me, an officer has not authority over me. Authority does NOT come from creation...ask any hired hand. If this is the basis of your logic, then you're in some serious trouble.

I was hoping you'd jump back over on the authority thread...

PacMan

[Mainer]

soren,

You made the comment a while back, "

"I have read D&C. The verse you cite is the basis of my whole point. If man was in the beginning with God (and also has a separate existence) God has no authority over him since man's existence is independant of Him."

Your logic is lacking, at best. It's like saying that because my mother gave birth to me, an officer has not authority over me. Authority does NOT come from creation...ask any hired hand. If this is the basis of your logic, then you're in some serious trouble.

I was hoping you'd jump back over on the authority thread...

PacMan

There is a big difference between God and your mom.

God has created a universe and owns it (including you and your mom).

Your mom was given the privilige of having children. You mom does not own those childern, God does.

[Son]

There is a big difference between God and your mom.

God has created a universe and owns it (including you and your mom).

Your mom was given the privilige of having children. You mom does not own those childern, God does.

According to the Federal gov't, anyone that has a birth certificate issued is owned by the United States. That is how they can print so much money, we are all chattle (cattle).

For a season anyway. Hail Caeser.