Theories of the creation of Spirits in GOD’s imageVery interesting and I think supported. I read some interesting testimony from Edgar Cayce who many say was in touch with the spirit of God and he said all souls were created in the beginning and none have been created since. He also talked about reincarnation while in a trance like state. He could speak other languages and could see and know things in the trance that he did not know when he was awake.
Traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul or synonymously, spirit, holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings.
Creationism of the soul / spirit is a doctrine held by some Christians that God creates a soul for each body that is generated by physical conception.
The Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) of the soul / spirit. All spirits created in the image of GOD were created at the same time BEFORE the creation of the physical universe which we all saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20.
In this forum I will present as I can the scriptures in support of PCE. I have studied this theory for circa 40 years so rebuttal designed to teach me what orthodoxy says will be a total waste of time and energy. Better would be an exegesis of the verses I use to prove I’ve missed their meaning, ie, I’d rather discuss interpretation than ortho doctrine.
I will also visit the blasphemies that orthodoxy is founded upon and discuss the PCE alternatives. As a challenge I ask: Do you know of any blasphemies at the base of Cristian orthodoxy? If not, why not?Are you not educated bible scholars yet you have never come across anything that someone has suggested is a blasphemy at the base of Chrisitany? Should be fun, eh?
Edgar Cayce, my my, a name from long long ago...Ted, why do we have no memory of this decision we made prior to creation?
Most of the world believes in some form of pre-earth existence except Christianity. IF I did not think the Bible supported PCE then I would not accept it, not matter what the rest of the world believed.
But I do think the Bible supports PCE.
As for reincarnation, I think reincarnation and PCE are two distinct and separate theologies, not corollaries of each other. There is room in PCE for the reincarnation of the non-elect. I don't think their reincarnation does them any good at all but it does bear witness to the sinful elect that these reprobate will never, can never, change no matter how many lives they live thru and therefore their end in the outer darkness is a forced inevitably.
To think that the sinful elect need more than one life to be redeemed casts aspersion upon HIS ability to deal with them in one lifetime, so I reject reincarnation for the elect on earth.
Ted, why do we have no memory of this decision we made prior to creation?
Ted, why do we have no memory of this decision we made prior to creation?
I read the answer in Romans 1 where it talks about sinners repressing, suppressing, the truth becomes they love sin more than the truth. It is one of the more pernicious effects of becoming a sinner, sigh. Romans does speak specifically to those under HIS wrath and I believe John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. tells us that sinful believers are never under condemnation, ie, wrath, but I have experienced this repression in myself in my sin so I am comfortable thinking it applies to the uncondemned sinful elect also.
Also, there is whole Christian sub-culture that insists on death as a return home which is perfectly PCE even without the theology and it implies that some residual memory of pre-earth as our home might exist.
This follows the Gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2Believing in the Deity of Christ does not make a Calvinist nor Arminian a Catholic. Similar aspects are differentiated by the bulk of the theology.
I have heard this theory expressed in many ways.Which theory"? The GAP theory which I reject or PCE which I espouse? I do not find the following in PCE traditions:
One was that all the pre-created spirit beings had to consent to becoming man (a physical creation in the physical creation of earth).
Satan/Lucifer would not consent and that is why he was cursed with no chance of redemption.
Satan thought he should rise to a higher state, not humble himself to a lower state.
I have heard this theory expressed in many ways.Which theory"? The GAP theory which I reject or PCE which I espouse? I do not find the following in PCE traditions:QuoteOne was that all the pre-created spirit beings had to consent to becoming man (a physical creation in the physical creation of earth).
Satan/Lucifer would not consent and that is why he was cursed with no chance of redemption.
Satan thought he should rise to a higher state, not humble himself to a lower state.
Now this is fanciful, :)
Please consider:
Satan and his crew sinned the unforgivable sin of attributing to GOD evil in HIS nature, in HIS intent and in HIS actions. IF they were still forgivable then they would be forgiven; ie, no one who can be saved will not be saved.
Then he and his were flung to the earth and bound by chains OF darkness ie blinded to the truth of YHWH's Divinity and Righteousness by their own desire to be evil, Rom 1:21+
Revelation 12:4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.
Flung is the same word used twice in Rev 12:7 Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Since flung has a meaning of harsh treatment from anger and it is also a strange thing for Satan to dispel a third of his cohorts BEFORE the war with Michael et al started, I suggest that the 1/3 he flung to earth were the elect who came under his spell and sinned which, though sinners, were of no use to him (since they were elect) therefore he rejected them, got them out of his way, before the war started.
Thus all sinners, elect sinners and eternally evil sinners, were sent to Sheol in the centre of the earth to await their time to be sown into the world as per Matt 13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “EXPLAIN to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil...to which the wicked return upon death: Ps 9:17 The wicked do turn back to / return to Sheol, All nations forgetting God. Going to Sheol is the result of a judgment. The implication is clear. The wicked are punished by being sent to back to Sheol instead of heaven. The word is translated as return 391 times by the biased KJV, just not here in this verse.
Theories of the creation of Spirits in GOD’s imageTed, I'm sorry this has taken me so long, you deserved better. I was so busy starting this forum and TF and then I began my YouTube venture and I haven't much time to read, think and post. I'm with you on the we existed before creation but what about the nakedness and bad or evil existing before the fruit?
Traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul or synonymously, spirit, holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings.
Creationism of the soul / spirit is a doctrine held by some Christians that God creates a soul for each body that is generated by physical conception.
The Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) of the soul / spirit. All spirits created in the image of GOD were created at the same time BEFORE the creation of the physical universe which we all saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20.
In this forum I will discuss as I can the scriptures in support of PCE. I have studied this theory for circa 40 years so rebuttal designed to teach me what orthodoxy says will be a total waste of time and energy. Better would be an exegesis of the verses I use to prove I’ve missed their meaning, ie, I’d rather discuss interpretation than ortho doctrine.
Of course I do not take my interpretation to be the only option - I present it to encourage lateral thinking about the blasphemies underlying Christian doctrine to encourage a search for the best solution. I do not believe there is any one or two verses that are so perfect they prove without doubt that PCE is true any more than there are any such verses that prove Calvinism, Arminianism or Catholicism are true.
I also challenge anyone to find even one verse that even simply implies that PCE might be theologically impossible - waste all the time you want on this one; it is not there.
I will also visit the blasphemies that orthodoxy is founded upon and discuss the PCE alternatives. As a challenge I ask: Do you know of any blasphemies at the base of Christian orthodoxy? If not, why not? Are you not educated bible scholars yet you have never come across anything that someone has suggested is a blasphemy at the base of Christianity? Should be fun, eh?
Here are some hints for understanding the posts in this section: When it asks you a question, try to answer it. Don't put finding the answer off. Secondly, don't read it so fast. You will notice that you just can't breeze over it and have it make sense immediately. On the other hand, it will make good sense if you go slow and answer the questions (or, at least, try to). You're going to have to do some work to see things this way. Blessed are those who are hungry enough to do the work, at least, that's what everyone says who has already worked hard enough to have climbed this mountain. They all say that the view is absolutely out of this world, and that the fruit at the top is even better, definitely worth the effort.
That you have never seen an interpretation of our pre-earth existence in the bible does NOT mean it is not there when it is possible that our being created on earth bias has taken over as the ONLY interpretation. A verse that can be interpreted to infer our pre-earth existence but which is ignored because of our created on earth bias is called a hint, just like the Divine suffering Messiah was hinted at throughout the scripture but not recognized due to the bias of the rabbis.
Take the most well known verse that hints at our pre-earth life: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Everyone when they first read this says, "Hey, does this say we were alive before we were in the womb?" and quickly learns that not only does it not mean this but is a hated Mormon doctrine. The obvious meaning that is rejected due to a theological position is a hint. It is obvious that the verse can have this meaning but theology has chosen to ignore it for another meaning...GOD only knew us pre-earth in HIS imagination...otherwise it upsets orthodox doctrine...that is, doctrine is used to find a verse's meaning rather than the meaning being found in the verse to create doctrine... ie, pure eisegesis!
That all verses that are hints to pce have been interpreted as something else for centuries means that you can read them and never even see that they might contain a hint to pce, nor can you find a commentary that accepts our pre-conception existence though the best will mention it.
Ted, I'm sorry this has taken me so long, you deserved better. I was so busy starting this forum and TF and then I began my YouTube venture and I haven't much time to read, think and post. I'm with you on the we existed before creation but what about the nakedness and bad or evil existing before the fruit?No worries mate! Your support has indeed been noticed and appreciated!
Thank you Ted, let me read this post several times as I ponder and meditate on it. I will certainly reply soon. God willing.Ted, I'm sorry this has taken me so long, you deserved better. I was so busy starting this forum and TF and then I began my YouTube venture and I haven't much time to read, think and post. I'm with you on the we existed before creation but what about the nakedness and bad or evil existing before the fruit?No worries mate! Your support has indeed been noticed and appreciated!
I'm a bit of a literalist so questions as "What about..." don't focus me to a particular answer, sigh. I'll take a guess that the reference to the fruit introduces the idea we sinned, became naked and chose to be evil before the traditional garden fall as being breaking the command not to eat. So, what do I think was the fall before the foundation of the world?
I think our election was conditional (not unconditional like our salvation is said to be), and I think that the condition was whether we chose by our free will to put our faith in YHWH as our GOD or to put our faith in HIS being the first liar and false god.
I believe that the gospel was proclaimed to every person ever created (which is not fulfilled on earth by current orthodox thinking) as per Colossians 1:23 ...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. as the call to faith in HIM and the Son which some responded to with a free will faith in HIM, thus being chosen to be HIS Bride and some rebelling against HIM by a free will faith (not proof) that HE was liar and a false god thus making themselves eternally unforgivable and as never able to be HIS bride, fit only for destruction.
This sparse and short intro to our fall is merely to show my insistence that every individual accrues sinfulness only by a free will decison to be sin and by no other means. The full exploration of how this is expressed in the scriptures and how the fall logically had to occur is chapter length which I will not indulge myself in writing up until I know this is the focus of your question.
Ted...Could GOD have known them without creating them first.?? So I guess PCE exist upon the preception of how powerful (all vs a lot vs a little) God really is.Perception or interpretation....
Blade
Ted...Could GOD have known them without creating them first.?? So I guess PCE exist upon the preception of how powerful (all vs a lot vs a little) God really is.Perception or interpretation....
Blade
Jesus implied the difference between between knowing ABOUT someone and knowing them when He expressed His disdain for the demons and the foolish virgins with the words "I never knew thee!" when we KNOW He knew all about them!!!
To know someone is different from to know about them and implies a relationship of acceptance, fellowship and even love.
When we take this idea of Christ's and apply it to our creation and His making decisions about us supposedly before our creation then we see that HIS KNOWING Jeremiah before he was in the womb fits into the side of having an accepting loving relationship with him before his life on earth and not that HE only knew all about Jeremiah in only the same way HE knew the people to whom He would say, "I NEVER knew thee!" though they claimed miracles in His name.
There has to be a difference in these expression and that is reflected in the doctrine that no, HE could not know anyone before their creation in the same way HE knows them after a relationship is developed between them on the order of using to know as and expression of physical intimacy of the deep and abiding marriage of Adam and Eve.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee.
If the Scripture said, I knew thee when you were a little child, we would say that Jeremiah existed at that time. If it said, I knew thee when you were in the womb, we would interpret it as saying that Jeremiah existed at that time. Why then, when the time moves back before the womb, does "I know thee" mean something else, to wit: “I knew about thee"? In the natural use of the word “knew", it is impossible to know someone before they exist, no matter how much you know about them.
I know Calvinists are blind to this distinction because it upsets their doctrinal cart and deny it is a true distinction so they can march to the drum that such a distinction proclaims the imperfection of
GOD alas....oh well.
We makes our choice and we sticks to it...
Have you been close to someone only to find out later, you never knew them?BladeDo you mean because they hid their true nature from me?? No one hides from the Living GOD, Blade.
Ted, at times I have arrived at the conclusion that I never asked to be here or to be born. People say that and believe that and what you are saying is that we did decide before creation, even as we will not remember that time or that decision.
Ted, at times I have arrived at the conclusion that I never asked to be here or to be born. People say that and believe that and what you are saying is that we did decide before creation, even as we will not remember that time or that decision.Ted, did you miss this post from me?
Ted, at times I have arrived at the conclusion that I never asked to be here or to be born. People say that and believe that and what you are saying is that we did decide before creation, even as we will not remember that time or that decision.I did indeed miss this post from you... :(
TED, I am a 5-point Calvinist... It is a doctrine in the Word of GOD as well as the free-will we experience demonstrated in John 3:16 and many other places....How GOD Reconciles these two together, I do not know ...There is a complete and harmonious reconciliation of these doctrines in PCE but they are heretical to 5 pt. Calvinism.
It is very dangerous. HOW? WELL...According to 1 Cor 15:1-4, we are to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to scripture. In other words, How can one truly believe in Jesus Christ if they delete, add, change etc. the WORD of GOD to make it fit their lifestyle and./or worldview. It is very dangerous territory and only GOD will determine just how dangerous to the human soul it is.
Blade
Edgar Cayce, my my, a name from long long ago...I'm interested in the "sinful animals" Ted, I think of animals as acting on instinct, therefore sinless.
Most of the world believes in some form of pre-earth existence except Christianity. IF I did not think the Bible supported PCE then I would not accept it, not matter what the rest of the world believed.
But I do think the Bible supports PCE.
As for reincarnation, I think reincarnation and PCE are two distinct and separate theologies, not corollaries of each other. There is room in PCE for the reincarnation of the non-elect. I don't think their reincarnation does them any good at all but it does bear witness to the sinful elect that these reprobate will never, can never, change no matter how many lives they live thru and therefore their end in the outer darkness is a forced inevitably. It may also account for the sinfulness of animals (proven later) if they are inhabited by 'dead' sinful spirits.
To think that the sinful elect need more than one life to be redeemed casts aspersion upon HIS ability to deal with them in one lifetime, so I reject reincarnation for the elect on earth.
Edgar Cayce, my my, a name from long long ago...
Most of the world believes in some form of pre-earth existence except Christianity.
IF I did not think the Bible supported PCE then I would not accept it, not matter what the rest of the world believed.
But I do think the Bible supports PCE.
As for reincarnation, I think reincarnation and PCE are two distinct and separate theologies, not corollaries of each other. There is room in PCE for the reincarnation of the non-elect. I don't think their reincarnation does them any good at all but it does bear witness to the sinful elect that these reprobate will never, can never, change no matter how many lives they live thru and therefore their end in the outer darkness is a forced inevitably. It may also account for the sinfulness of animals (proven later) if they are inhabited by 'dead' sinful spirits.I'm interested in the "sinful animals" Ted, I think of animals as acting on instinct, therefore sinless.
To think that the sinful elect need more than one life to be redeemed casts aspersion upon HIS ability to deal with them in one lifetime, so I reject reincarnation for the elect on earth.
Edgar Cayce, my my, a name from long long ago...
Most of the world believes in some form of pre-earth existence except Christianity.
This sounds political, like the government...Most of Americans believe this and that..
IF I did not think the Bible supported PCE then I would not accept it, not matter what the rest of the world believed.
But I do think the Bible supports PCE.
Now it is the rest of the world believing
If the world as you say "pre-existed" (the gap between verse 1 and 2 Genesis.),
How does that affect the rest of the Bible. Answer: It does not!As for reincarnation, I think reincarnation and PCE are two distinct and separate theologies, not corollaries of each other. There is room in PCE for the reincarnation of the non-elect. I don't think their reincarnation does them any good at all but it does bear witness to the sinful elect that these reprobate will never, can never, change no matter how many lives they live thru and therefore their end in the outer darkness is a forced inevitably. It may also account for the sinfulness of animals (proven later) if they are inhabited by 'dead' sinful spirits.I'm interested in the "sinful animals" Ted, I think of animals as acting on instinct, therefore sinless.
To think that the sinful elect need more than one life to be redeemed casts aspersion upon HIS ability to deal with them in one lifetime, so I reject reincarnation for the elect on earth.
I'm interested in the "sinful animals" Ted, I think of animals as acting on instinct, therefore sinless.Please consider:
If the world as you say "pre-existed" (the gap between verse 1 and 2 Genesis.),How does that affect the rest of the Bible. Answer: It does not!Blade you're in top form tonight.
Blade
|
Ted...Could GOD have known them without creating them first.?? So I guess PCE exist upon the preception of how powerful (all vs a lot vs a little) God really is.Perception or interpretation....
Blade
Jesus implied the difference between between knowing ABOUT someone and knowing them when He expressed His disdain for the demons and the foolish virgins with the words "I never knew thee!" when we KNOW He knew all about them!!!
To know someone is different from to know about them and implies a relationship of acceptance, fellowship and even love.
When we take this idea of Christ's and apply it to our creation and His making decisions about us supposedly before our creation then we see that HIS KNOWING Jeremiah before he was in the womb fits into the side of having an accepting loving relationship with him before his life on earth and not that HE only knew all about Jeremiah in only the same way HE knew the people to whom He would say, "I NEVER knew thee!" though they claimed miracles in His name.
There has to be a difference in these expression and that is reflected in the doctrine that no, HE could not know anyone before their creation in the same way HE knows them after a relationship is developed between them on the order of using to know as and expression of physical intimacy of the deep and abiding marriage of Adam and Eve.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee.
If the Scripture said, I knew thee when you were a little child, we would say that Jeremiah existed at that time. If it said, I knew thee when you were in the womb, we would interpret it as saying that Jeremiah existed at that time. Why then, when the time moves back before the womb, does "I know thee" mean something else, to wit: “I knew about thee"? In the natural use of the word “knew", it is impossible to know someone before they exist, no matter how much you know about them.
I know Calvinists are blind to this distinction because it upsets their doctrinal cart and deny it is a true distinction so they can march to the drum that such a distinction proclaims the imperfection of
GOD alas....oh well.
We makes our choice and we sticks to it...
Ted, I'm worried that I'm destined for outer darkness and the pit. Do I still have a chance? :-[ :(
How can one speak of God in such terms of both knowing someone (before they were even formed in the womb) and not ever having known them (Depart from me, I never knew you)?I'm sorry I was unclear, sigh.
How can one speak of God in such terms of both knowing someone (before they were even formed in the womb) and not ever having known them (Depart from me, I never knew you)?I'm sorry I was unclear, sigh.
My understanding of PCE theology at this time is:
to know someone after they were created is to start having a loving relationship with them, a relationship which is based upon the person's choice to put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and in the Son as the saviour from all sin by faith, that is, without any proof. This was the start of HIS choice of them to be HIS Bride, our election. This could be the base for the biblical use of knowing to refer to the sexual union.
The phrase 'I never knew you!' then must mean that our creation is not a knowing at all but only what we could refer to as a knowing about - it denies that any loving relationship exists with these people no matter how they live their surface life in His church.
I foreknew you means we started a loving relationship based upon your faith...
I never knew you means we never entered into a loving relationship because you rejected me by your faith in yourself.
Thus to know someone or to not know them has no reference to their creation at all.
How can one speak of God in such terms of both knowing someone (before they were even formed in the womb) and not ever having known them (Depart from me, I never knew you)?I'm sorry I was unclear, sigh.
My understanding of PCE theology at this time is:
to know someone after they were created is to start having a loving relationship with them, a relationship which is based upon the person's choice to put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and in the Son as the saviour from all sin by faith, that is, without any proof. This was the start of HIS choice of them to be HIS Bride, our election. This could be the base for the biblical use of knowing to refer to the sexual union.
The phrase 'I never knew you!' then must mean that our creation is not a knowing at all but only what we could refer to as a knowing about - it denies that any loving relationship exists with these people no matter how they live their surface life in His church.
I foreknew you means we started a loving relationship based upon your faith...
I never knew you means we never entered into a loving relationship because you rejected me by your faith in yourself.
Thus to know someone or to not know them has no reference to their creation at all.
I don't follow your train of thought here at all. The passage you reference from Jeremiah is clearly talking about before physical birth. Before development "in the womb." So then it isn't talking about a physical person at all. It's spiritual. Yes?
It says nothing about knowing someone after they were created. I take it you are some kind of reformed (former) Calvinist trying hard to reconcile "election" (predestination) with it's scriptural shortcomings. Good luck with that. You'll end up doing exactly what you fault them for doing (an unwillingness to let go of their preconceptions).Once this verse as accepted as being the straight truth, I agree, the theology it implies throughout the rest of scripture does indeed reconcile the blasphemies of Calvinism, Arminianism and Catholicism quite well.
The Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) of the soul / spirit. All spirits created in the image of GOD were created at the same time BEFORE the creation of the physical universe which we all saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20.
TED..You of course are speaking about Mat 7:21-23. Read the context...Of course He knew them for He made them even in the womb they were born from. The phrase had other meanings.
Blade
Not 'equating' - merely reporting that those are the words in the text...QuoteThe Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) of the soul / spirit. All spirits created in the image of GOD were created at the same time BEFORE the creation of the physical universe which we all saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20.
Okay- I now understand a little better where you are coming from... you are equating 'ben elohim' (sons of God) with these spirits who were shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth.
How about the morning stars? --From that same passage in Job it mentions that 'the morning stars' AND the sons of God were present. If you focus on one, you shouldn't ignore the other. If the ben elohim sons of God are the spirit beings that later become human beings, what then are the morning stars that were present at the same time-- singing together during the setting of the cornerstone and the measuring out of that foundation of the earth?
The invisible att[/size][size=78%]ributes of HIS dei[/size][/size][size=78%]ty [/size]and power[size=78%] were made visible that is PROVEN, by the creation of the physical universe to all those (whomever they were) who were watching!![/size][size=78%]
Romans 1 says that it was through creation of the world that the invisible became visible. Do you agree? The invisible attributes of God became visible through creation. Don't you think that this would hold true in the forming (within the womb) of man? The invisible attributes of God become visible.... before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.... invisible/spiritual/united -then the invisible becomes visible in creation.
QuoteThe Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) of the soul / spirit. All spirits created in the image of GOD were created at the same time BEFORE the creation of the physical universe which we all saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20.
Okay- I now understand a little better where you are coming from... you are equating 'ben elohim' (sons of God) with these spirits who were shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth.
How about the morning stars? --From that same passage in Job it mentions that 'the morning stars' AND the sons of God were present. If you focus on one, you shouldn't ignore the other. If the ben elohim sons of God are the spirit beings that later become human beings, what then are the morning stars that were present at the same time-- singing together during the setting of the cornerstone and the measuring out of that foundation of the earth?
Romans 1 says that it was through creation of the world that the invisible became visible. Do you agree? The invisible attributes of God became visible through creation. Don't you think that this would hold true in the forming (within the womb) of man? The invisible attributes of God become visible.... before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.... invisible/spiritual/united -then the invisible becomes visible in creation.
Mr. E. I agree with you but also think the problem is those who practice PCE, failure to recognize that God/Jesus home is not of this dimension.
Their failure to place this universe we know in a different dimension is another problem. There are adequate verses comfirming this.
Thanks for your insight.
Blade
Mr. E. I agree with you but also think the problem is those who practice PCE, failure to recognize that God/Jesus home is not of this dimension.
Their failure to place this universe we know in a different dimension is another problem. There are adequate verses comfirming this.
Thanks for your insight.
Blade
There is nothing in PCE Theology that disagrees with any other dimension theories.
This is the first I've heard of this concern and so I ask that you tell me how pce conflicts with your understanding of other dimensions because as far as I can tell, the multi-dimensional stuff could be an easy answer to both pce and the placement of hell, that is, the outer darkness.
In reply 35:Quote from: Mr ErYou wrote:which I found condescending and hostile.
Slow down there Sparky. One thing at a time. Also-- it would help (since you are having technical difficulties) if you would just forgo trying to use the font features and colors and such. It's making your posts almost unreadable. Maybe just simplify things and perhaps limit yourself to bolding words or using italics for emphasis. Keep it clean Ted.
In my post i told you that I used only bold, not even italics and I DID NOT CHANGE SIZES OF ANYTHING but you persist in this red herring.
If you can't help, please quit hassling me. I've used the report feature to report this to management but no reply so far.
All the size changes in this paragraph of mine i copied were chosen by the editor, not me so I mentioned I had followed your advice explicitly which you also seem to have ignored.Quote[size=78%][I chose [/size]nothing[size=78%] except bold from the eding menu, not my keyboard - the [/size]editing[size=78%] difficulties are not made by me...so I hope to be left alone about it and that it gets fixed!][/size][size=78%]
If you want to be helpful then please will you report this problem to the management..
[/size]
Maybe it looks different on your browser PJ— here’s how it looks on mine...I don't know how or why this is happening. I can try reporting this to the forum company if they can do anything.
he invisible att[/size][size=78%]ributes of HIS dei[/size][/size][size=78%]ty [/size]and power[size=78%] were made visible that is PROVEN, by the creation of the physical universe to all those (whomever they were) who were watching!![/size][size=78%]
[/size][size=78%]Where is there any hint that it was not us who were watching before we were sown into our earthly bodies by either Christ or the devil, [/size][size=78%]Matt 13:36-30[/size][size=78%]? ? There is not one verse in the [/size]bible[size=78%] that says [/size]straight[size=78%] out or even hints obliquely that our pre-conception existence is impossible.[/size][size=78%]
[/size][size=78%][I chose [/size]nothing[size=78%] except bold from the eding menu, not my keyboard - the [/size]editing[size=78%] difficulties are not made by me...so I hope to be left alone about it and that it gets fixed!][/size][size=78%]
Hi Ted-
Where did you first hear of PCE theory. Who introduced it to you, and how?
Whenever I hear someone tell me that they've held this or that position for some forty years, naturally a red flag goes up. If you don't know anything more today than you knew 40 years ago, it's unlikely you'll accept anything new.New? What new doctrine are you trying to teach me??? I haven't seen it yet so, ummmm. . .
Whenever I hear someone tell me that they've held this or that position for some forty years, naturally a red flag goes up. If you don't know anything more today than you knew 40 years ago, it's unlikely you'll accept anything new.New? What new doctrine are you trying to teach me??? I haven't seen it yet so, ummmm. . .
You don't know me well enough for this yet. I did not tell the whole story because you scolded me for dumping too much into one post.
8 or 9 years ago I started to engage people on Christian forums. The atheists worked me over pretty good, forcing me to seek the Spirit on the best probable understanding of reality that they could understand even if they could not accept it. This understanding I bounced off the Christian community and of course hit the stone wall of long held traditions and orthodox belief held for hundreds of years, not just 40.
The pot is speaking out of turn, as my understanding has deepened greatly from the Christian input over these last 8 years.
I have looked into the PCE Theology and have come to the conclusion that there are many places where the Word of GOD must be removed, changed or in some cases Added to make this Theology work.
Blade
Whenever I hear someone tell me that they've held this or that position for some forty years, naturally a red flag goes up. If you don't know anything more today than you knew 40 years ago, it's unlikely you'll accept anything new.New? What new doctrine are you trying to teach me??? I haven't seen it yet so, ummmm. . .
You don't know me well enough for this yet. I did not tell the whole story because you scolded me for dumping too much into one post.
8 or 9 years ago I started to engage people on Christian forums. The atheists worked me over pretty good, forcing me to seek the Spirit on the best probable understanding of reality that they could understand even if they could not accept it. This understanding I bounced off the Christian community and of course hit the stone wall of long held traditions and orthodox belief held for hundreds of years, not just 40.
The pot is speaking out of turn, as my understanding has deepened greatly from the Christian input over these last 8 years.
This guy Rudolf Steiner with his Anthroposophy, that I've been listening to talks about existence before creation yet he also talks about multiple earthly lives and lives between death and new life. I try to stay open minded as I don't just believe anything presented but I try to "mine" the information for valuable insight. I have the time to do this and I thank God.
He also talks very much about Christ and those who oppose Him, with detailed explanations for Christ's death at Golgotha. I lose interest during certain parts of the lectures but I'm enjoying the stimulation and the creative/intuitive juices it stirs in me. I just find it fascinating that this guy was speaking exactly 100 years ago.
Genesis 2 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
The above is scripture that has been used to support the PCE theology to imply that every host of heaven and earth already existed by the 7th day.
This one also is used:
Hebrews 7 ESV
(9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
(10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Implying that Levi existed before he was born and therefore he also gave tithes to Melchiedek because he was already a part of (so to speak) of Abraham when the tithes were given.
Sure.Genesis 2 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
The above is scripture that has been used to support the PCE theology to imply that every host of heaven and earth already existed by the 7th day.
This one also is used:
Hebrews 7 ESV
(9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
(10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Implying that Levi existed before he was born and therefore he also gave tithes to Melchiedek because he was already a part of (so to speak) of Abraham when the tithes were given.
Keep in mind that Levi was a tribe of Israel, a Priesthood tribe. therefore the priesthood was giving ties to Melchizedek because they are to be from Abraham.
Blade
Genesis 2 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
The above is scripture that has been used to support the PCE theology to imply that every host of heaven and earth already existed by the 7th day.
This one also is used:
Hebrews 7 ESV
(9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
(10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Implying that Levi existed before he was born and therefore he also gave tithes to Melchiedek because he was already a part of (so to speak) of Abraham when the tithes were given.
What is a human being.... if not-- 'a host of heaven?' And that man who lived among the tombs? He was the host with the most.Great pun!
Sure.Genesis 2 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
The above is scripture that has been used to support the PCE theology to imply that every host of heaven and earth already existed by the 7th day.
This one also is used:
Hebrews 7 ESV
(9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
(10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Implying that Levi existed before he was born and therefore he also gave tithes to Melchiedek because he was already a part of (so to speak) of Abraham when the tithes were given.
Keep in mind that Levi was a tribe of Israel, a Priesthood tribe. therefore the priesthood was giving ties to Melchizedek because they are to be from Abraham.
Blade
The point is that it cannot be said of Levi that he gave tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham did unless he existed at that time (in some form within Abraham).
Sure.Genesis 2 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
The above is scripture that has been used to support the PCE theology to imply that every host of heaven and earth already existed by the 7th day.
This one also is used:
Hebrews 7 ESV
(9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
(10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Implying that Levi existed before he was born and therefore he also gave tithes to Melchiedek because he was already a part of (so to speak) of Abraham when the tithes were given.
Keep in mind that Levi was a tribe of Israel, a Priesthood tribe. therefore the priesthood was giving ties to Melchizedek because they are to be from Abraham.
Blade
The point is that it cannot be said of Levi that he gave tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham did unless he existed at that time (in some form within Abraham).
As Mr E says sometimes ...... "it is, but it isn't".
He Levi (the tribe) did exist within Abraham's descendants.
Blade
As Mr E says sometimes ...... "it is, but it isn't".
He Levi (the tribe) did exist within Abraham's descendants.
Blade
If we are to say that Levi paid tithes to Mechizedek because he was in Abraham, then one logical conclusion would be that Levi did everything Abraham did.
But we can't say that Levi did everything Abraham did or we would have to say that Levi also had a miraculous child (like Isaac), or that Levi lied as Abraham did when he told the king she was his sister instead of his wife.
The "it is, but it isn't" seems to be a common occurrence in scripture; which is why it is sometimes difficult to make a certain scripture verse mean the same in all situations.
I think you got that completely backwards there Blade. God didn't consider Abraham in some manner to be "of Levi" but the other way around. Levi was in every way "of Abraham."
-but that's not what the chapter is about. The distinction that is being made is that Melchizedek isn't of Abraham, nor is he of Levi.... and yet Abraham and all of those who came after him (including Levi in a manner of speaking as one of Father Abraham's cone seeds) paid tribute to Melchizedek -- the lessor (Abraham) paid the tithe to the greater (Melchizedek) and it was this (greater) Priest who blessed the lessor tithe payer (Abraham).
Hebrews says that the law dictates that all priests must be Levites, but Melchizedek was neither a Levite, and not even from Father Abraham... no one knows his genealogy or where he came from or who his parents were, but we know not Abraham, and not Levi. And so Hebrews lays out clearly that it isn't through the law that the true priesthood is established but through the Son of God-- through Christ. As further evidence, neither was Jesus a Levite, but scripture tells us that Jesus (of Judah, chief of sinners among the brothers) is our Priest forever and of the order of Melchizedek not because of physical lineage (Jesus was of Judah) but by means of an indestructible life... by resurrection.
By all of this we know that Melchizedek too, became a Priest in the same way (by resurrection) or he would not be the example given.
What should we make of this?
Jesus was never a priest on earth. The law dictated that only Levites could become priests. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.
Maybe have a closer reading of Heb 7. I'd venture a guess that most people miss it, but Hebrews points to another priest arising... from this same order of Mechizedek. It speaks of our Lord (Jesus) who was a descendent not of Aaron (the Levite) but of Judah, and then it says IF ANOTHER priest arises according to the likeness of Mechizedek -who in turn Heb 7:3 says was himself made like the Son of God- a priest perpetually.
For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him,
“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”
So Melchizedek was one of these like the Son of God- a priest forever, and Jesus by resurrection became of this same order of Priests, and IF another arises according to this same likeness, this one too would also become one of this same order and a priest forever.
Scripture, as you mention says that there is a kingdom of heaven where in spirit we are indeed a kingdom and priests that reign upon the earth. Few understand what this means. Fewer still can accept it. And it isn't that corrupt priesthood that Moses hooked his brother Aaron up with... it's that order of priests that only consists of the redeemed... the resurrected. When he comes, dry bones awaken.
https://youtu.be/jzy7p16CBIQ
Jesus was never a priest on earth. The law dictated that only Levites could become priests. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.
Maybe have a closer reading of Heb 7. I'd venture a guess that most people miss it, but Hebrews points to another priest arising... from this same order of Mechizedek. It speaks of our Lord (Jesus) who was a descendent not of Aaron (the Levite) but of Judah, and then it says IF ANOTHER priest arises according to the likeness of Mechizedek -who in turn Heb 7:3 says was himself made like the Son of God- a priest perpetually.
Just what would you call His preaching all those years. Yes, He was from the tribe of Judah yet, the Law ended with John the Baptist. As you say, Jesus was/is a priest and King following the order of Mechizedek.
Think it is interesting that Jesus was already a Priest before Mechizedek was born. Heb 7-3 (KJV)
For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him,
“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”
So Melchizedek was one of these like the Son of God- a priest forever, and Jesus by resurrection became of this same order of Priests, and IF another arises according to this same likeness, this one too would also become one of this same order and a priest forever.
God Ordained Jesus as High Priest: Heb 3:1 (KJV).."Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;"Scripture, as you mention says that there is a kingdom of heaven where in spirit we are indeed a kingdom and priests that reign upon the earth. Few understand what this means. Fewer still can accept it. And it isn't that corrupt priesthood that Moses hooked his brother Aaron up with... it's that order of priests that only consists of the redeemed... the resurrected. When he comes, dry bones awaken.
https://youtu.be/jzy7p16CBIQ
you said:"When he comes, dry bones awaken, . "
Another subject for another time.
Yes, we are translated and redeemed to Heaven, yet as already being justified, we are all priest(disciples) of sorts for we spread the WORD of GOD..As you said, we are not part of the priesthood of the Law but different.
I might add: 1 Jo 3:2.."Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
Have a safe and productive day, my brother
Blade
These thoughts reflect a bit of what Ted talks about, but maybe doesn't fully understand... The pre-existent one is God- and everything else comes from Him, returns to Him and remains as such- coming and going as He sees fit in obedience and service to Him-- our Father, not as slaves, but as sons--children of God. Those who don't remain are simply cut off, pruned-- like branches that don't produce fruit, destroyed by fire, consumed.
Ted-- can you PLEASE just type using ONLY plain text?
I agree Ted, it's not your fault and it bothers me as well. I wish I could fix it.
Ted-- can you PLEASE just type using ONLY plain text?
Mr Ed-- can you PLEASE stop accusing me for what is out of my control!!! When I saw my post I edited it...
Ted-- can you PLEASE just type using ONLY plain text?
Mr Ed-- can you PLEASE stop accusing me for what is out of my control!!! When I saw my post I edited it...
I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...
/
To answer/
I use Chrome.
i access the internet by logging into my computer.
i have added every update ever offered both for Mac os and Chrome...
I was deleting the coded bracelets ][ that's how I took the stuff out each place where it had those at with the size and font and colorThat's how I deleted those on there..I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...
La Shonda-- you are amazing! Whiz kid!
... how?
These thoughts reflect a bit of what Ted talks about, but maybe doesn't fully understand... The pre-existent one is God- and everything else comes from Him, returns to Him and remains as such- coming and going as He sees fit in obedience and service to Him-- our Father, not as slaves, but as sons--children of God. Those who don't remain are simply cut off, pruned-- like branches that don't produce fruit, destroyed by fire, consumed.
This post has been edited to point out that in it I used nothing from the editor, no bold, no italics, no change of colour or size. This mess was created by the editor on simple text. I feel dismayed, sabotaged and let down...sigh.
Depending on your definition of words I accept a lot this ...
I always refer to our first faith as in YHWH as our GOD and in the Son as our only saviour from all sin. These are references. I do not say Christ because that is a worldly reference to an anointed one and there are many besides the incarnate Son, Jesus.
I do NOT have a calling to protest niceties of salvation because my calling is to question the dogma about our fall into sin, especially the fall of the elect HIS bride. How are some of the doctrines about our sinfulness NOT blasphemies? How is our sinfulness to be reconciled with our perfect creation in innocence if not in righteousness without impugning GOD by that which is a sin to us.
I was deleting the coded bracelets ][ that's how I took the stuff out each place where it had those at with the size and font and colorThat's how I deleted those on there..I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...
La Shonda-- you are amazing! Whiz kid!
... how?
I was deleting the coded bracelets ][ that's how I took the stuff out each place where it had those at with the size and font and colorThat's how I deleted those on there..I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...
La Shonda-- you are amazing! Whiz kid!
... how?
They will just reappear on my next post - I've been doing this for months and quit because no one was paying attention, :)
Hi Ted-- I'd like to hear more from you on your view of 'the genesis' of our fall into sin, and the fall of the bride in particular.
This is a very PCE discussion to have. I wonder how far back you are looking?
Hi Ted-- I'd like to hear more from you on your view of 'the genesis' of our fall into sin, and the fall of the bride in particular.
This is a very PCE discussion to have. I wonder how far back you are looking?
[/size]Hi Ted-- I'd like to hear more from you on your view of 'the genesis' of our fall into sin, and the fall of the bride in particular.This is a very PCE discussion to have. I wonder how far back you are looking?In this post the editor was not used for any modification of any text but I pasted it into my mail program and ran it thru the ordinary text profile...I start before the creation of anything...with the purpose for our creation as an act of love.My two basic premises are 1. sin is accrued by the created person ONLY by a free will decision to reject YHWH as GOD or, while accepting HIS claims to be our GOD, to rebel against a command HE gave us.2. The election of some and not others to salvation from any future sin CANNOT HAVE BEEN unconditional because no matter how it is sussed, unconditional election means also unconditional reprobation and damnation and that is not loving. PERIOD.I also find that the reason for our election or reprobation before the foundation of the world must have two corollaries: 1. we were actually alive, ie, in existence, and deciding by our free will what we wanted our relationship with YHWH to be and 2. this decision about our future relationship was by faith ie, an unproven hope, which is the source, start, of all saving faith.
Hi Ted-- I'd like to hear more from you on your view of 'the genesis' of our fall into sin, and the fall of the bride in particular.
This is a very PCE discussion to have. I wonder how far back you are looking?
[/size]Hi Ted-- I'd like to hear more from you on your view of 'the genesis' of our fall into sin, and the fall of the bride in particular.This is a very PCE discussion to have. I wonder how far back you are looking?In this section the editor was not used for any modification of any text but I pasted it into my mAil program and ran it thru the RICH TEXT profile...I start before the creation of anything...with the purpose for our creation as an act of love.My two basic premises are 1. sin is accrued by the created person ONLY by a free will decision to reject YHWH as GOD or, while accepting HIS claims to be our GOD, to rebel against a command HE gave us.2. The election of some and not others to salvation from any future sin CANNOT HAVE BEEN unconditional because no matter how it is sussed, unconditional election means also unconditional reprobation and damnation and that is not loving. PERIOD.I also find that the reason for our election or reprobation before the foundation of the world must have two corollaries: 1. we were actually alive, ie, in existence, and deciding by our free will what we wanted our relationship with YHWH to be and 2. this decision about our future relationship was by faith ie, an unproven hope, which is the source, start, of all saving faith.
Very.... umm.... Calvinist.My goodness, what have you gone thru that the mere mention of the word election triggers such a knee jerk response???
Do you have a Christian Reformed background for your beliefs? I ask because they are the most likely to get hung up on "election."
Does this sum up your view then, regarding those Calvinist beliefs? This is how Arminians countered the Calvinist idea of unconditional election (predestination) with something that could be called "conditional election."
Very.... umm.... Calvinist.My goodness, what have you gone thru that the mere mention of the word election triggers such a knee jerk response???
Do you have a Christian Reformed background for your beliefs? I ask because they are the most likely to get hung up on "election."
I have no Calvinist background. I deplore the obvious inadequacies of Calvinist theology that led him into such blasphemous doctrines as UNconditional election.
If you should ever get out of your memories and relook at Calvinism again, you will quit equating me with them...you do yourself no favours with such a blatant disregard for my true pov.
Election is a fact. it has meaning. It affects our life.
Calvin botched it royally. I've spent 12 years dening Calvisit election publically.
Others botched it too but at least they don't always delve into blasphemy.
Dealing with your ad hominem disparagements is tiring...sigh.
Mr. E, the description of my thoughts on our fall after our election but before the creation of the physical universe is forth coming.
Mr. E, the description of my thoughts on our fall after our election but before the creation of the physical universe is forth coming.
Verse supports are available for all parts:
ImCo:
GOD first created ALL the spirits in HIS image ie, capable of being a suitable Bride for HIM, with a free will with an equal ability and opportunity to choose to put their faith in HIM or to reject HIM and HIS heavenly purpose.When this created society matured, HE proclaimed to all HIS divinity and HIS purpose of the heavenly marriage with them, including the heavenly rewards and the dangers of hell and that salvation from sin was found only in the Son by faith, an unproven hope, in Him.
HE promised anyone who put their faith, their unproven hope, in HIM and the Son would be elected, chosen, to be HIS heavenly Bride and saved from all sin and those who rejected HIM by faith, ie, and unproven hope that HE was a liar and a false god, would be damned forever.
The response to this proclamation separated all of creation into three groups: the holy elect, the eternally sinful reprobate and the sinful elect. The fall of some of the elect came about because some only accepted HIM so they could be free from the dangers of hell but were planning to then go their own way no matter what HE wanted from them.
Since HE is a GOD who cannot abide evil and must destroy it as soon as possible, HIS first command was to set up the judgement day to come about. HE commanded all HIS elect to “come out from among the reprobate,” that is, to repudiate their friendships or even love for these who must be condemned because he knew some were harbouring idolatrous thoughts about the reprobate that the judgement was too harsh, too unloving and too unnecessary to be accepted. Most complied, some didn’t, becoming enslaved to sin themselves, HIS sheep gone astray into sin, needing redemption.
The next command was for HIS elect to then come out from among their elect but now sinful friends and to leave them to HIS mercy...which most accepted but some did not.
By repeated calls for those not yet sinful to come out for among the sinners HE found the level of willingness to sin (ie, their lack of willingness to be holy) in every person in creation from Satan to the least sinful person in existence including the holy elect angels who never sinned.
Then the physical universe was created which proof of HIS divinity and power ended everyone’s free will decisions about these choices, setting our self chosen fates into motion.
Satan, his demonic angels and the fallen elect were all flung into Sheol in the centre of the earth to live together in the world as the best method of bringing to holiness HIS sinful elect, Matt 13:29-30, the parable of the sower, especially considering Jesus’ explanation of the parable, Matt 13:36-39.