Patrick Jane Forums | Theology, Anthropology, Conspiracy

Christian Theology with DOUG and TED T. => Biblical Pre-Conception Existence Theology (PCE) => Topic started by: Ted T. on May 11, 2019, 05:11:13 pm

Title: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on May 11, 2019, 05:11:13 pm
  Theories of the creation of Spirits in GOD’s image
 
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on May 11, 2019, 05:27:52 pm
  Theories of the creation of Spirits in GOD’s image
 
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?
Very 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.

I'm not trying to change the subject nor am I relating PCE to Edgar Cayce or reincarnation. I'm only relaying what I read as I was reading that book before I started reading the Bible. Thank you Ted, I will enjoy your posts very much.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on May 12, 2019, 02:15:15 pm
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.


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. 
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on May 18, 2019, 11:47:16 pm
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.


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?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on May 19, 2019, 01:11:13 pm
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.


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on May 19, 2019, 09:14:54 pm
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 1:2

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on May 20, 2019, 12:20:41 pm
This follows the Gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2
Believing in the Deity of Christ does not make a Calvinist nor Arminian a Catholic.  Similar aspects are differentiated by the bulk of the theology.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Tambora on September 12, 2019, 02:19:31 pm
I have heard this theory expressed in many ways.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on September 13, 2019, 02:55:34 pm
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:
Quote
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.

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.
   
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on September 18, 2019, 08:30:53 pm
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:
Quote
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.

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.
 

Your PCE theology would make a good science fiction book.

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on October 21, 2019, 12:40:01 pm
  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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on March 09, 2020, 02:22:05 pm
  Theories of the creation of Spirits in GOD’s image
 
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.
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on March 09, 2020, 03:42:28 pm
  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...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.

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on March 10, 2020, 01:12:02 pm
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.
   


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on March 10, 2020, 01:49:34 pm
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.
 
Thank you Ted, let me read this post several times as I ponder and meditate on it. I will certainly reply soon. God willing.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on March 10, 2020, 02:07:52 pm
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.

Blade
Perception or interpretation....

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...
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on March 10, 2020, 07:41:07 pm
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.

Blade
Perception or interpretation....

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?

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on March 11, 2020, 12:27:38 pm
Quote
Have you been close to someone only to find out later, you never knew them?Blade
Do you mean because they hid their true nature from me??  No one hides from the Living GOD, Blade.

Jesus said there were people who would claim to be of Him whom He NEVER knew!!! This has to make sense somehow in light of the fact He created us, He elected us, He sowed, planted, us into mankind (Matt 13:37-38) so how could He NEVER know some of us???

The only thing that makes sense is that HE had a prior good relationship with those called the good seed aka His sheep whom He knew and loved but who went astray into sin but now are RETURNING to Him through the gift of grace: 1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have RETURNED to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.  When were you one His sheep before you were created sinful in Adam? In Adam's sin you believe we are are spiritually separated from GOD until rebirth so when were we His sheep in our sin?

How did we go astray into sin if we had no choice to sin nor opportunity to be anything but sinful in Adam?  Either He did not pay attention to us or our sin was due to some rebellion in us...and which is more likely that our sin is His fault for not being a good Shepherd or our rebellion?  None of this makes any sense whatsoever without our pre-earth faith in Him by which we became His sheep, aka His elect, aka His good seed, and then rebelled  against Him, pre-conception.


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on January 10, 2021, 07:51:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on January 11, 2021, 09:51:03 am
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.

Quote from: Ted T. on March 10, 2020, 02:07:52 pm
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.

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 but I do know that both of them are doctrines of GOD and one cannot throughout what they don't like.

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

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on January 22, 2021, 10:44:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on January 23, 2021, 05:06:16 pm
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... :(


I believe we made a decision to put our faith in YHWH and HIS claims 1. to be the truth from our creator GOD, becoming elect, OR 2. as lies from a false god, being condemned to the outer darkness from that instant.


 I'm also convinced that we knew that this would end with the judgment of all those who rejected HIM as their GOD but any elect who chose to rebel against HIS commands were promised salvation by the work of the Son. Election was indeed a promise of salvation if it was ever needed.


But I am not convinced that we knew that the physical universe would be created nor that all sinners would become humans Matt 13:36-39, and the sinful elect would have to live with the reprobate tares until we were fully sanctified, ie, made holy, ie made to be heaven ready: Heb 12:5-11.


If not, no one asked to be born human and some elect may have been dismayed when they were flung down to Sheol in the centre of the earth to await their turn to be sown, planted, into mankind.

PS, do you see the small print in the last line? I've had to fix 3 or 4 other places by changing the font size but sometimes, as here, it will not take. Neither are the 'remove formatting' and 'toggle view' buttons working for me, sigh.

Don't hesitate to ask again if I missed something...
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on January 23, 2021, 05:31:18 pm
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.

PCE rests upon two of the strongest statements in the Bible:
1. GOD is love.
2. GOD is light.
Any doctrine that has a hint of putting these two verses into disrepute should be denied and reworked to make them fit the meaning of these two verses... but not by the sophistry of many words.

Can the proof verses be interpreted to mean what the 5 points claim? Of course but then either HIS love must be rearranged so the creation of evil people is loving or the definition of light must be reworked to prove that light can create dark.

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

Unless you claim to have had a personal revelation from GOD or that Calvin had a personal revelation from GOD, then all your doctrines have been made to fit his and your lifestyle and/or worldview...

The flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion as a bright light and hearing GOD's voice. Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Jesus Truth on June 19, 2021, 02:10:40 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 19, 2021, 10:07:30 pm
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.


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.
[/quote]

sounds like this is wishful thinkng... and It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.  (1 COR 15:1-4)

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on June 19, 2021, 10:33:49 pm
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.


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.

sounds like this is wishful thinkng... and It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.  (1 COR 15:1-4)

Blade
[/quote]Blade you're in top form tonight.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 20, 2021, 11:45:59 am
I'm interested in the "sinful animals" Ted, I think of animals as acting on instinct, therefore sinless.
Please consider:
1. The serpent was said to be cunning in evil above, more than, the other animals which implies they were somewhat crafty also.


2. The serpent was cursed above all the other animals which implies that they were cursed for sinfulness too, just not a strongly as he was.


3. When the earth was cleansed of the wickedness of men by Noah's flood, HIS regret over having made men specifically includes the animals as partakers of the wickedness HE condemned, Gen 6:7.


What is said about three witnesses in agreement?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 20, 2021, 12:32:36 pm
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
Blade you're in top form tonight.



IF PCE is true it does away with the need to see GOD as creating HIS people as sinful by means of having them to be born into Adam's sin either as a natural system or as a system to punish Adam.


PCE makes every person on earth a sinner by their own free will, not by GOD's will...light cannot create darkness. Those who end in hell end there by their own decision when they chose to put their their faith in the definition of GOD as a liar and a false god, not by HIS will but by their own.


It goes to our definition of GOD, HIS attributes and HIS purpose for our creation.


Those who worship a GOD they call good who creates sin because HE needs it for some such reason tread dangerously close to the Woe of

Isaiah 5:20




Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on June 20, 2021, 10:25:50 pm
Ted, I'm worried that I'm destined for outer darkness and the pit. Do I still have a chance?  :-[ :(
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 21, 2021, 10:30:03 am
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.

Blade
Perception or interpretation....

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...

I'm sorry I clicked a button I don't know how to unclick... I didn't mean to "dislike" your post, in fact I like this topic very much.  I haven't spent any time looking into your PCE theories, but am happy to do so now and hopefully we can have a good discussion.

Can I offer an alternative idea to consider?  As often happens with me, I see things in a broader sense as concepts or images, rather than black and white- this or that.  More often than not, something is 'this AND that.'  I see in pictures, in words, in songs in stories and in dreams that combine all of these things, so for me- when something comes to mind... I consider it.

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)?

You point correctly to 'the biblical sense' of the word that conveys the meaning of "knowing" someone (in the biblical way).  In other words-- a person (in the broadest sense of personhood) was in the beginning, or even before the beginning in keeping with your theology-- "known" (united) with God before they became a person (in the narrower sense of human ((physical)) existence) but later at the appointed time of judgment, that person becomes unknown in the same sense of meaning-- no longer united.  It's saying 'Depart from me- we were never joined together.'  -and it's referring to that human soul or spirit that returned to God to stand before the throne to be weighed in the balance.

In a sense "knowing" is a state of union.  If one 'begins' with God (in union) and returns either to union there is no ending.  Those cut off from the branch are only those not united (not known) and only then does one face the fire of destruction.  In this sense it isn't so much a matter of beginnings and endings, but rather of remaining, or being cut off.

https://youtu.be/iO_W7cMWBMg
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 21, 2021, 11:52:58 am
Ted, I'm worried that I'm destined for outer darkness and the pit. Do I still have a chance?  :-[ :(


From my pov there is nothing to worry about. We decided our own fates over 6000 years ago. If the gospel of faith, [size=78%]not works, is true then it also means we are condemned already, Jn 3:18, by our faith, not [/size]works[size=78%].[/size]

[size=78%]Faith is not measured by how strongly we [/size]believe in[size=78%], accept, an idea but in how strongly we HOPE for the idea to be true. Heb 11:1 [/size]Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen [unproven].
[/size][/color]
[/size] Hope without proof is the essence of faith. Have you the proof you are saved? [/color][/size]Probably not but if you hope you are anyway, that measures faith. And if you hope strong enough to act on that hope by seeking GOD and righteous[/color][/size] living, that too measures faith.[/color]


It is our faith in Him to be our saviour without any proof that He is, that separates us from those who have faith they have nothing to worry about the judgement day because YHWH, if HE exists, is a liar and a false god and Christ the Son cannot save anyone from a sin that is a figment of our imaginations... This is why Prov 9:10 can say '[/size][size=78%]The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom...' as it leads to the HOPE to escape the [/size]judgement by[size=78%] some miracle.[/size]

[/size][size=78%]If my [/size]faith[size=78%] is a delusion I am still satisfied as my life is 100% better since my conversion and repentance, sigh.[/size]

[/size][size=78%]I hope this makes sense and if I write too clumsily, I don't mind rewording.  As you can see, my editor is still not working right.[/size]
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 21, 2021, 12:12:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 21, 2021, 09:13:01 pm
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).

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 21, 2021, 09:28:16 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 22, 2021, 12:24:53 pm
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?

The use of spiritual in this context is confusing... do you mean as a spirit or merely in GOD's mind?

People existed as non-corporeal  people BEFORE the creation of the

physical universe as proven when GOD scolded Job about where he was


when the universe was created. Ignoring the fact that this only makes

sense if Job was there, someone was certainly there because ALL THE

SONS OF GOD sang HIS praises for joy!!!

Job 38:7 ...when the morning stars sang together and all the s
ons of GOD

shouted for joy.

While we can thank some translators for their eisegetical help in trying to

keep us for being seduced by the dreaded pre-conception existence

doctrine by putting angels for sons of GOD, they did in fact substantially

change the meaning of the verse to suit their preconceived bias.

The substitution of angels for sons of GOD is NOT due to any reference such as:the sons of God, that is, the angels,, being found in scripture at all but is in every place an interpretation of the only meaning (so they thought) of what sons of GOD must mean in a context which they had already decided that no human spirit had been as yet created... exegesis, patooie.


And though ALL does not always mean all as in every person or thing it certainly can and is used in this way biblically.


So according to this verse from a straightforward meaning of the words used, if you are a son of GOD, you were there singing HIS praises for
his clear and perfect proof  of HIS deity and power as we are told every person has seen, Rom 1:18-20 so all are without excuse before HIM.

 
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.


If you'd rather think that GOD creates HIS Bride as evil by making her to be born sinful in Adam with no free will intent to rebel, ie guilty (as proven by the death of infants) without mens rea, then, fine. 


If you'd rather accept that GOD banishes some people to eternal hell because they are late in repenting (though the ability to repent is only by grace, sigh)  and their ability to repent is ended by their physical death (though some get 100 years to repent and others get only 20 years or less) which denigrates HIS nature of being loving as love is patient and kind and so  perfect love would be perfectly patient and not waiting another minute or even eon for their death is no kindness...so be it.


How can the belief there are people in hell who could be saved but He didn't do everything HE could to save them (especially just by waiting patiently) not be blasphemous??


Orthodoxy has had hundreds of years to write their doublethink theo-babbe to reconcile their cognitive dissonance over these contradictions rather than accept one tittle of an interpretation of what the true words of scripture might mean instead of their biased interpretation so I know that there is no dearth of such explanations...I just think for myself they must be wrong. These people know a bit about theology but they seem to know nothing of the truth of GOD's loving patience and justice  at all!
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 22, 2021, 12:43:12 pm
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.

Now all I was asking about was what you referenced from Jeremiah.  Pretend I've never heard of what you call PCE.  If you were to put it in a nutshell for a newbie like me, how would you articulate your view?

From what I understand- you believe that all "people" (anyone ever physically born on earth) pre-existed spiritually (in spiritual form as spirit beings) with God, prior to being physically born.  Yes?

And then you surmise, that at that time these spirits "chose" whether to accept or reject Christ (they chose to have a relationship with him, or not) ahead of their human incarnation- thus no matter what they did or did not do in their human lives, the earthly choices they make have no heavenly consequence at all because their choice had been made before they were even born.  Is that it?  Please correct any misunderstanding on my part and then we can go on.

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 22, 2021, 01:50:15 pm
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 22, 2021, 02:10:13 pm
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


Every phrase of the bible has other meanings...sigh.


My context includes Job 38:7 and Matt 13:36-39 (and all the other verses I quote which you pan) which imply He moved us to this world, not that HE created us here which idea leads to all kinds of blasphemy, which is all very explained away for for those who like the God who creates evil, believes in inherited sinfulness and who accept the end of HIS loving patience over the unforgivable sin of the damned.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 22, 2021, 04:20:04 pm
Quote
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.

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.
Not 'equating' - merely reporting that those are the words in the text...

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 morning stars either
-  refers to all the Sons of [size=78%]GOD in Hebraic [/size]repetition[size=78%] for effect or[/size]
-  they refer to another group deifferent formthe sons of GOD.

Now we know that there are some of HIS creation who are NOT sons but illegitimate: Deuteronomy 32:5 “They have corrupted themselves; They are not His children because of their blemish but a perverse and crooked generation.


OR


their blemish is that they are not HIS children.


World English Bible
They have dealt corruptly with him, [they are] not his children, [it is] their blemish. [They are] a perverse and crooked generation.

PCE suggests that creation does not make us HIS sons or this could not be written, ie equating illegitimacy to perversity. Therefore, on the basis of Col 1:23 suggesting that the proclamation of of the gospel was a finished, fully completed act heard by EVERY creature under heaven, implying even the ones sown into mankind (Matt 13:36-34) and that this precipitated us to choose to believe it or not, a choice which separated all of creation into elect or non-elect by where each person put his faith.


Since a free will decision by faith, which is an unproven hope, must be by definition unproven, we can see that once the proof is given, then no more free will to accept or deny HIS gospel is available. The creation of the physical universe was the proof that locked the non-elect into their need to bow to sin and continue to exchange the truth they clearly saw and knew for the lie because they now loved sin more as per Rom 1:18 to the end.


This the creation of the physical universe had to happen AFTER everyone had chosen their eternal relationship with YHWH as HIS elect or as HIS eternal enemies...and the stupendous nature of the creation as the proof of HIS deity and power caused even those totally opposed to HIM, as a liar and a false god,[/size][size=78%] that is[/size][/size][size=78%], the morning stars,[/size][/size][size=78%] sang HIS praises for joy, even as they knew they were doomed to hell for their unforgivable sin.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Which [/size]scenario[size=78%] this might be, I do not profess to know.[/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.
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%]

[/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%]
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 22, 2021, 05:38:22 pm
I offered you a simple solution regarding the text/font/color difficulties.  Stop doing it.

As it is-- it's undreadable.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 22, 2021, 08:28:19 pm
Maybe it looks different on your browser PJ— here’s how it looks on mine...

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%]
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 22, 2021, 09:30:47 pm
Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 23, 2021, 10:53:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 23, 2021, 10:58:12 am
I understand what you are saying Blade.  Ted seems to be trying to reconcile some Calvinist doctrine (which I know you embrace) with his own ideas that he's calling PCE.  I don't think it's a widely held theology, at least I haven't run across what you might call PCE churches in my travelings.

As far as Jesus goes, 'this dimension' certainly was his home for at least a time, before returning to the Father's house and the place that had been prepared for him.  I do give Ted credit for the effort, but he's gonna get stuck quickly unless he's willing to consider some other angles.  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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 23, 2021, 11:01:31 am
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.

Hi Ted-

Where did you first hear of PCE theory.  Who introduced it to you, and how?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 23, 2021, 11:13:11 am
In reply 35:
Quote from: Mr E
rYou wrote:
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.
which I found condescending and hostile.


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]
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on June 23, 2021, 11:22:17 am
Maybe it looks different on your browser PJ— here’s how it looks on mine...

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%]
I don't know how or why this is happening. I can try reporting this to the forum company if they can do anything.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 23, 2021, 11:45:15 am

Hi Ted-

Where did you first hear of PCE theory.  Who introduced it to you, and how?


It was in the mid 70s in a home bible study group. I learned the basic concepts and got the list of verses.  I did not stop with the cursory verse interpretations that are so well covered by the commentaries but t[size=78%]hen I spent three years in personal bible study 3-4 hours a day, reading the whole bible three times as I [/size][/size][size=78%]worked prayerfully through all three dozen plus verses, how they relate to each other and [/size][/size]what that implied about realty[/size][size=78%] within the fulness of scripture.[/size]
[/size]
 After that I got the word in the Spirit to quit studying and get a life!  :)
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 23, 2021, 12:20:45 pm
  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.



Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 23, 2021, 08:23:04 pm
  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.

May I step in?

I had my dealing with Atheist as well. For a couple of years, I debate them about the Bible. I concluded, they study hard and listen to those before them for the information needed to literally sluff off God's Word as nothing. It is difficult but one cannot change from the authority of the Word of GOD....They either hear it or they do not. That part is up to GOD and GOD alone. we can only give the message that Jesus gave us to give them.

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.

The Bible is one integrated WORD consisting of 66 chapters written by 40 writers over a period of 1500 years and author only one---GOD>

Thank for letting me put my two cents worth in.

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 24, 2021, 11:35:13 am
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


It is my conclusion that PCE is truer to the actual words of scripture than the orthodolgically changed words, changed for eisegetical reasons with examples as this last few day posting contains one or two. Did discussion arise over them? Was I challenged over my use of the words all the sons of GOD as written and not angels given by interpretation in Job 38:7


What is different in PCE is the interpretation of the meaning of the words, and their intent.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 24, 2021, 03:16:02 pm
  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.

Ted, you are right in saying we don't know each other well.  - And I happen to agree with your experience concerning Christians who think all of their own ideas are settled science... ahem... theology.  Most often with all kinds of scriptures to "imply" things that they insist are stated.  So I do understand both your frustration and reluctance or hesitation to engage folks.  You'll find me more likely to listen than some.  I actually think you are kind of on the right track, by degrees. 
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Tambora on June 24, 2021, 04:29:49 pm
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.


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on June 24, 2021, 04:40:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 24, 2021, 05:19:43 pm
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.

That's a good way to approach it PJ.  Open minded, but with eyes wide open.  I once had a mentor tell me-  "Focus on good things... read and learn things of value.  There isn't enough time in a day for "everything" so you have to be choosey and choose good things."

That stuck with me.  He once said-- don't waste your time on silly things.  Don't read things to simply entertain yourself.  Learn something from everything and you can.... but-- it's like digging through a trash can looking for something good to eat.  You 'might' find something, but why bother?  Go to a grocery store instead-- they are full of good things.  A library is a grocery store for your head.

The Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures to see if the things they were being told- 'were true.'  It's a method few employ when confronted with a new idea.  Most of us automatically think-- 'well that can't be true' because it differs from what I already believe.  -But what if you approached new ideas like the Bereans?  What if?

I think that's what they were commended for.  They took a 'what if it's true?' stance (instead of a buffalo).
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 24, 2021, 09:48:46 pm

While I will agree with you to some extent, Interpretation using the meaning of words as spoken by the interpreter is not the meaning the WORD of GOD gave to us.

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 24, 2021, 09:54:34 pm
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
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Tambora on June 25, 2021, 01:46:56 am
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
Sure.
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).
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 25, 2021, 05:05:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Tambora on June 25, 2021, 06:44:56 pm
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!
Legion.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 25, 2021, 09:25:50 pm
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
Sure.
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).

He Levi (the tribe) did exist within Abraham's descendants.

Blade
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 26, 2021, 05:51:06 pm
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
Sure.
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).


I knew you back when you were nothing but a little swimmer in yer daddy's nut sack.


oops... that was supposed to go in the GIANTS thread maybe.... or was it?  Tambo said something about not wanting to have to rake up all the leaves that fall from those big boys.  Well no, not really.  See those are conifers.  Cone bearing seed plants--- if you want to get really technical you might say gymnosperms.

-from the tiniest of seeds..... and that's an image of the tree of life and in turn, the kingdom of heaven.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Tambora on June 26, 2021, 07:49:09 pm

He Levi (the tribe) did exist within Abraham's descendants.

Blade
As Mr E says sometimes ...... "it is, but it isn't".

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 27, 2021, 04:31:29 pm

He Levi (the tribe) did exist within Abraham's descendants.

Blade
As Mr E says sometimes ...... "it is, but it isn't".

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 see what you are saying Tambora but I think your reading too much into the verse.

God is telling us that He considered Abraham a Levi.

.Ok, so Abraham was a Levi...what does that mean?:  I don't know but under Jacob, all the tribes of Israel are named and God reveals the Levi tribe as the Priesthood of Israel. God already knows this little bit of info, right? 

therefore, God also considered Abraham as a Levi priest who happen to give ties to another Priest and King! This is the only reference to this in the Bible.....as Moses and the Brass Serpent was until later.

Another Question: Why does GOD make sure we know that Mechizedek was a King and through the statement about Abraham, he is also a priest. It will become illegal for anyone under the Laws of Moses to be a Priest and King at the same time? 

 It just keeps rolling on, does it not?  Just a thought!

Blade

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 27, 2021, 05:38:11 pm
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?


Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 27, 2021, 10:38:34 pm
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."

I will agree with that!

-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).

I will even agree here!

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?

We know only the Melchizedek was the King of Salem and He was a Priest, something considered illegal in Israel. Other than that very little is known about him.  We do know that Jesus was a priest on earth as well as a rejected Messiah (King),long before His Resurrection.

However, because of the Resurrection and His Grace, the sins of the world was saved (IF) they would believe the Gospel of Jesus according to scripture. Those who are justified, will become Kings and Priest on the same order of Jesus Christ and Melchizedek.

Blade

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 27, 2021, 11:21:01 pm
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

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 28, 2021, 09:06:14 am
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
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 28, 2021, 10:55:39 am
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

I'm sorry-- I still haven't figured out how to break up a response in sections and use some kind of multi-quote feature...

We likely differ on some aspects here, but to me it matters not.  I don't force agreement on anyone.  I'd be happy to tell you how I read it, if you like.

Hebrews 7:3 isn't speaking about Jesus at all.  Rather, that verse is all about Melchizedek.  In this understanding, Jesus was not "already a priest before Melchizedek was born."  In fact, we know nothing of who this person (Melchizedek) was, neither who his parents were, or anything about him.  His "tribe" is meaningless, as there were no "tribes" yet.  That all came later through the loins of Abraham, his son (of the promise) Issac and then in turn his (younger son who stole his brother's rightful inheritance) Jacob (called Israel, from whom the 12 tribes would descend).

It was Melchizedek who like the Son of God, had no mother or father or genealogy to point to--- in other words, this person we know so little about was the Christ figure incarnate at that time in the person (flesh) of a man named Melchizedek.  There is only one Christ which is of the Spirit, not of flesh.  When this anointing (spirit) descends upon a person (flesh) they are then 'anointed' and become Christ... Immanuel... God with us.  -For a time.

This is of course a controversial idea not accepted, or perhaps not even considered by orthodoxy.  It also happens to be the truth of the matter.  When the Word of God comes to a person they become a mouthpiece, a messenger, a prophet, an apostle-- it doesn't matter what they are called, their "calling" is clear... God says to them- go and they go, speak and they speak His words.  Their words are no longer their own, but they speak the Word of God by the Spirit that is within them.

As for Jesus-- he was born a man.  He was never appointed priest on earth, just as he was never a king "on earth' because his kingdom (of priests) is spiritual, not physical.  He came as a man-- and became an apostle (messenger as Heb 3:1 tells us) and he became a Priest forever in the order of this Melchizedek --- "of the kind" of Melchizedek who lived before Jesus (preceded him).

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.

There's much more that could be said-but that's an intro.   :)
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 28, 2021, 12:22:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 28, 2021, 12:27:19 pm

Ted-- can you PLEASE just type using ONLY plain text?

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 28, 2021, 12:39:39 pm

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...
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: patrick jane on June 28, 2021, 01:21:27 pm

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 agree Ted, it's not your fault and it bothers me as well. I wish I could fix it.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 28, 2021, 02:41:30 pm

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...

What browser are you using?  If you are using Microsoft Edge for example, have you tried accessing using Google Chrome instead?  Or vice versa?  There is something you are doing/using that is not compatible with this platform.

If you are not attempting to change font style, size and color on purpose then I apologize because it appears that you are just tryin' to be all fancy like that and it's messing things up.  More likely is that your browser or computer isn't up to date and it either needs an update, and upgrade or a new way to access (such as a different browser).

Have you tried something other than what you are using?  When you first open your computer each day-- how do you access the Internet?

(trying to help here)
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: La Shonda on June 28, 2021, 06:31:44 pm
I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 28, 2021, 06:38:23 pm
I edited the post hopefully it's fixed...

La Shonda-- you are amazing!  Whiz kid!

... how?

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 28, 2021, 09:06:00 pm
 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...
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 28, 2021, 09:52:11 pm
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...

You must have a virus.  Have you had the vaccine?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: La Shonda on June 28, 2021, 11:32:38 pm
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..
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 29, 2021, 10:03:07 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 10:46:37 am
Yep - the full 2 shot.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 10:59:56 am
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..




They will just reappear on my next post - I've been doing this for months and quit because no one was paying attention, :)

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 29, 2021, 11:08:26 am
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..




They will just reappear on my next post - I've been doing this for months and quit because no one was paying attention, :)

Perhaps, but now- thanks to Shonda, we know how to fix it.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 11:30:23 am
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...


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[size=78%], to rebel [/size]against[size=78%] a [/size]command[size=78%] HE gave us.[/size]

[size=78%]2. The [/size]election[size=78%] of some and not others to salvation from any future sin [/size][size=78%]CANNOT HAVE BEEN unconditional [/size]because[size=78%] no matter how it is sussed, [/size]unconditional[size=78%] election means also [/size]unconditional[size=78%] reprobation and [/size]damnation[size=78%] and that is not loving. PERIOD.[/size]

[size=78%]I also find [/size]that the reason[size=78%] for our [/size]election[size=78%] or reprobation before the [/size]foundation[size=78%] of the world  must have two [/size]corollaries[size=78%]: 1. we were [/size]actually[size=78%] alive, ie, in [/size]existence[size=78%],  and [/size]decidin[size=78%]g by our free will what we wanted our [/size]relationship[size=78%] with YHWH to be and 2. this [/size]decisionabout[size=78%] our future [/size]relationship[size=78%] was by faith ie, an unproven hope, which is the source, start, of all saving faith.[/size]
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 11:31:44 am

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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 11:34:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 11:41:13 am
It looks like creating my answers in my email program then pasting here is going to be a good work-around though the problem still exists..


Mr. E, the description of my thoughts on our fall after our election but before the creation of the physical universe is forth coming.


Edited to add: I DID NOT make the change size in paragraph 2, sigh.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 29, 2021, 12:19:57 pm
Very.... umm.... Calvinist.

Do you have a Christian Reformed background for your beliefs?  I ask because they are the most likely to get hung up on "election."

Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 29, 2021, 01:04:26 pm
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."

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of a fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 05:26:53 pm
Very.... umm.... Calvinist.

Do you have a Christian Reformed background for your beliefs?  I ask because they are the most likely to get hung up on "election."
My goodness, what have you gone thru that the mere mention of the word election triggers such a knee jerk response???


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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 29, 2021, 05:46:39 pm
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."


I won’t read any further because I have no iota of acceptance for conditional election. Both Calvin and Arminius blasphemed the loving, righteous nature of GOD and HIS justice.


Calvin’s claim that our election or reprobation was unconditional is a blatant disrepute of GOD’s love. Arminius’ claim that GOD would have saved everyone if they would have just repented in time ie, in their lifetime, also brings HIS love into disrepute because HIS love is perfect and HIS perfect love is perfectly patient so HE would wait patiently for aeons for every person who could be saved to finally accept their salvation!


The idea there are people in hell which could have been saved but are not because He didn’t save them is ludicrous. The only people who are not saved are those who CANNOT be saved because they sinned the unforgivable sin of putting their faith in the idea that YHWH was a liar and therefore a false god!


These so called teachers may have some instruction in theology but they have no understanding nor experience of GOD’s love.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 29, 2021, 07:05:56 pm
Very.... umm.... Calvinist.

Do you have a Christian Reformed background for your beliefs?  I ask because they are the most likely to get hung up on "election."
My goodness, what have you gone thru that the mere mention of the word election triggers such a knee jerk response???


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.


lol.... okay Tedster... we can do it your way.

What I've "gone through" is some of your posts.  Apparently with the misconception that you might actually want to have a conversation about some of the ideas you posted.  I'm curious as to what you think are 'ad hominen attacks.'  How about you post/quote those instances so I might apologize to you.


First-  likely I wasn't clear, but I was thinking that it was Calvinism you are railing against, not believing in.  I wasn't entirely sure, so I asked if perhaps you have had some sort of background experience in dealing with Calvinists.  Asked and answered.

Since Calvinist thought concerning unconditional election where God simply chooses whom He pleases is anathema to you, I wondered if then perhaps you were a proponent of Armenian theology and the idea of conditional election, where "God knows" what it is you are going to choose at some future point in time so He chooses you because you 'are going' to choose Him.  It seems you don't abide this idea either, so now maybe we can get to the point where you might present what it is you hold to, rather than discussing the things you dislike.... I was trying to establish some kind of baseline for a conversation with you...

But-

I'm actually becoming less and less interested in having that conversation because I'm discovering you to be rather prickly and unpleasant and quick to take some kind of offense at almost anything I might ask.  I'm happy to take the discussion of such things elsewhere if you prefer (that means with other people instead of you).  Just say the word.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Ted T. on June 30, 2021, 02:59:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Mr E on June 30, 2021, 04:05:42 pm
Got it.

Thanks
Title: Re: Pre-Conception Existence - an intro
Post by: Bladerunner on June 30, 2021, 05:57:43 pm
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.

You said:"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.  "

This would make Him a reactionary GOD....Plus this is unbiblical....

Blade