Did we Exist Before The Garden of Eden?

[theStudent]

For debate:
Did we all exist in the spirit realm or in another realm before our birth as humans?

[ttruscott]

I suggest you start with your first scripture, offering a detailed explanation of how you interpret it and work through your list that way. I would also suggest you write one post per scripture to avoid the posts being overly long, since there are quite a few scriptures you will be presenting a commentary on.

I look forward to reading this series of posts and appreciate the time you will be dedicating to this project JW

Not a bad suggestion but a little daunting at the book this would make. One post per scripture will not work as you can see they are separated into 9 different categories and there are usually a number of verses supporting any single category. To split the verses into individual statements without the other verses would not work because each one supports the other.

As for keeping the posts short, you can imagine that some veres need backstory and a careful handling of language as you have seen me do so far. In other words, some posts would be quite long.

You suggest I offer a detailed explanation of how my interpretation BUT, for instance, consider the category Elephants, a whimsical title based upon the old kid's joke:
Q: WHY DO ELEPHANTS WRITE SCRIPTURES ON THEIR TOE NAILS?
A: So that they can hide in the Bible and nobody sees them.
This is somewhat similar to the worldly version; they paint their toenails red so they can hide in the strawberry patch.

It is a discussion about whether there are any doctrines hidden in scripture that have not been taught to us yet. It covers over 10 verses, their interpretation and the theological commentary to build the idea and tie it all together.

See my problem with providing details?

The genesis category contains

An Introduction to Genesis 2:18 and 2:25:
I believe that in the early chapters of Genesis, it was GOD's intention to bear witness to the purpose of life, that is, our need to become holy and to give up any idolatry in our personal relationships (that is, that we were originally exiled from Paradise because of our unholiness and idolatry), while at the same time covering over the fact of our preconception existence, that is, while at the same time, not destroying the delusion regarding the time of our true beginning.

This category is 8 pages long... and continues with gen 2, another 8 pages covering 8 verses and gen 3 - Eve's blindness in 11 pages covering 7 verses.

So you can see there is indeed a whole comprehensive theology in these verses which I have been shortening to a summary with one to three verses at a time and without all the theologic amplitude.

So, let's look at John 16:12, the first verse in the category Elephants:

John 16:12, Jesus said: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.

Hence, Jesus knew some truth that He was unable to disclose to us, and He also knew that this truth would someday be disclosed to the Church. In other words, Jesus knew that the Church was going to receive a new revelation in the future.

So now, this being the case, I ask: would not GOD bear witness in Their Word to a revelation that They intended to give in the future?

The other verses in this Elephant category support this 9 page thesis.

The Apology for the necessity for a full exegesis:
Being that hardly anyone has searched the Scriptures in light of the preconception view, these Scriptures have rarely been interpreted this way before. Therefore, it stands to reason that such an exegesis of these Scriptures will be new and that it will be fairly unique, that is, that almost all the other interpretations of the same Scriptures will be different.

In other words, any verse that conveys the idea of pre-existence has rarely been interpreted this way before because almost every exegete automatically looks for a different interpretation when they read such a Scripture. This being the case, a mere list of Scriptures will not constitute proof of scriptural support for this doctrine but, to provide such proof, such a list will have to be accompanied by an in-depth exegesis of the said Scriptures. Providing such a list without the accompanying new exegesis would only tend to prove to its searchers that this doctrine had no scriptural support, simply because they would tend to interpret the Scriptures that supply proof of our preconception existence, in much the same way that everybody used to interpret the Scriptures regarding the christ king.

[ttruscott]

AS well, we have Colossians 1:23 ...if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. 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....easily but not universally whitewashed of its pre-existence implications.

RESPONSE

First notice Paul did not say "in heaven" or "in existence" (which would cover all creation) he said "UNDER the heavens". If we, as seems reasonable, take "the heavens" to refer to God's abode, where God lives with his son Jesus and all the angels, then "under the heavens" would simply mean "on earth" (for heaven is frequently depicted in depicted as being "up" or "above/over" the earth).

Thayers allows the use of the phrase under heaven to refer metaphorically to an efficient cause, as that which is under the power of which an event is conceived of as being; which I accept. Under heaven meaning under the power of heaven would then refer to everything HE had created, every person in HIS image, as being those who heard the gospel without being restricted to earth people, humans.

We each follow where the Spirit of our faith takes us...

QUESTION Was Paul claiming that every individual person had received a personal testimony?

No, Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible explains...

How could it be different? They have all rejected PCE so they will not answer from a PCE pov. They have no more proof their answer is the truth than I do but PCE does not rest on the blasphemies of orthodoxy that everyone ignores. From my understanding, calling seeing the creation of the physical universe 'receiving a personal witness' is a bit much though I guess it is only hyperbole.

Regarding the speed of the initiative, Professor J. W. Thompson pointed out: Christianity had spread with remarkable rapidity over the Roman world. By the year 100 probably every province that bordered the Mediterranean had a Christian community within it, and in many provinces there were several congregations. The vertical expansion upward from the lowly classes who had been its first converts into the upper strata of Roman society seems also to have been rapid."History of the Middle Ages, p. 22.

The speed of the spread of the gospel on earth doesn't negate that the words Col 1:23 can support the meaning that the gospel was preached to everyone created in HIS image before the creation of the physical universe as part of the being open and honest about all the consequences and ramifications of accepting or rejecting by our free will, the deity and promises of YHWH.

The PCE interpretation misses the need for the blasphemy that HE created evil sinners in Adam, and the blasphemy that HE needed to create HIS Bride as evil and corrupt to bring her to holiness and marriage. It contends ALL people heard the gospel and some accepted and some rejected it - just like here on earth but with the free will we do not have here on earth.

CONCLUSION Given the above, there seems no reason to conclude that Paul was saying anything other than that at the time of his writing, the good news had been preached in all the (the known) world. There is absolutely no explicit or implicit indication that the above imposes any kind of pre-existent life for the recipients of that message.

Very accurate conclusion in support for the age old orthodox interpretation...but a difference of interpretation proves nothing. I have been led differently into a path that has not yet been denied or proven impossible but rather is just as viable an option as any except it misses so much blasphemy and has a better understanding of free will.

[theStudent]

I suggest you start with your first scripture, offering a detailed explanation of how you interpret it and work through your list that way. I would also suggest you write one post per scripture to avoid the posts being overly long, since there are quite a few scriptures you will be presenting a commentary on.

I look forward to reading this series of posts and appreciate the time you will be dedicating to this project JW

Not a bad suggestion but a little daunting at the book this would make. One post per scripture will not work as you can see they are separated into 9 different categories and there are usually a number of verses supporting any single category. To split the verses into individual statements without the other verses would not work because each one supports the other.

As for keeping the posts short, you can imagine that some veres need backstory and a careful handling of language as you have seen me do so far. In other words, some posts would be quite long.

You suggest I offer a detailed explanation of how my interpretation BUT, for instance, consider the category Elephants, a whimsical title based upon the old kid's joke:
Q: WHY DO ELEPHANTS WRITE SCRIPTURES ON THEIR TOE NAILS?
A: So that they can hide in the Bible and nobody sees them.
This is somewhat similar to the worldly version; they paint their toenails red so they can hide in the strawberry patch.

It is a discussion about whether there are any doctrines hidden in scripture that have not been taught to us yet. It covers over 10 verses, their interpretation and the theological commentary to build the idea and tie it all together.

See my problem with providing details?

The genesis category contains

An Introduction to Genesis 2:18 and 2:25:
I believe that in the early chapters of Genesis, it was GOD's intention to bear witness to the purpose of life, that is, our need to become holy and to give up any idolatry in our personal relationships (that is, that we were originally exiled from Paradise because of our unholiness and idolatry), while at the same time covering over the fact of our preconception existence, that is, while at the same time, not destroying the delusion regarding the time of our true beginning.

This category is 8 pages long... and continues with gen 2, another 8 pages covering 8 verses and gen 3 - Eve's blindness in 11 pages covering 7 verses.

So you can see there is indeed a whole comprehensive theology in these verses which I have been shortening to a summary with one to three verses at a time and without all the theologic amplitude.

So, let's look at John 16:12, the first verse in the category Elephants:

John 16:12, Jesus said: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.

Hence, Jesus knew some truth that He was unable to disclose to us, and He also knew that this truth would someday be disclosed to the Church. In other words, Jesus knew that the Church was going to receive a new revelation in the future.

So now, this being the case, I ask: would not GOD bear witness in Their Word to a revelation that They intended to give in the future?

The other verses in this Elephant category support this 9 page thesis.

The Apology for the necessity for a full exegesis:
Being that hardly anyone has searched the Scriptures in light of the preconception view, these Scriptures have rarely been interpreted this way before. Therefore, it stands to reason that such an exegesis of these Scriptures will be new and that it will be fairly unique, that is, that almost all the other interpretations of the same Scriptures will be different.

In other words, any verse that conveys the idea of pre-existence has rarely been interpreted this way before because almost every exegete automatically looks for a different interpretation when they read such a Scripture. This being the case, a mere list of Scriptures will not constitute proof of scriptural support for this doctrine but, to provide such proof, such a list will have to be accompanied by an in-depth exegesis of the said Scriptures. Providing such a list without the accompanying new exegesis would only tend to prove to its searchers that this doctrine had no scriptural support, simply because they would tend to interpret the Scriptures that supply proof of our preconception existence, in much the same way that everybody used to interpret the Scriptures regarding the christ king.

I would think that a scriptural truth, can be summed up in a brief explanation, and about no more than three or four scriptures. If you prefer ten.
If we need more, we would basically explain why they are not supporting your ideas - using scripture, of course.
How does that sound?

For example, I believe bum!
Here are a few scriptures, blam!

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

According to the Bible, we made no choice to sin when we were born. We inherited it from Adam.

Again, where?

(Romans 5:12-19)

That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned " . ...

Just to be certain:
Romans 5:12
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

Berean Study Bible
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

1. sin entered the world through / by one man
2. death came with / through/ was brought by sin
3. and thus, like this, in the same manner, this is the way death spread to all men
4. for that they sinned.

Now, which phrase do you see means that Adam's sin passed to us when it clearly says HIS DEATH passed to us? To me it sounds like, as sinners, by being in Adam we receive death because we were a sinners already.

I'm also curious about another anomaly in this verse not addressed yet. Sin came into the world by Adam's eating. Period. Yet the serpent came into the garden with evil intent and seduced Eve to follow his lead the first sin mentioned. Then Eve sinned by following the serpent's lead and then again when she ate and then again when she enticed Adam. So at least four sins by two other sinners before Adam ate. May I suggest that this can only make sense if Adam was a sinner when HE was breathed / sown into his body in the garden and as a sinner he brought sin with him from Sheol where he came from?

Do you demand such niceties from yourself in your bible study? Many doctrines are implied in scripture, not specifically stated.

I'm just asking you for scripture to support what you are saying.
When someone gives me their viewpoint, I am not just interested in what they believe. I'm interested in why they believe what they say, and if they are able to scripturally explain it.
If they can't use the scriptures to explain it, then it is clearly just an idea, either of their own, or another man.
Do you think that's a good thing for one to do, or bad?

I think it is very good but I get the hint that you think your interpretation of Rom 5:12 is somehow superior to mine. If you consider it superior because it has time and the weight of orthodoxy on its side then may I remind you the Pharisees were probably right to reject Christ's claims? Same same to my mind.

No one has anything but an interpretation, we live by faith, not proof and we must go where the Spirit leads us.

At what point was the bride created?

Ok, to the point...

ImpceCo
when we chose to accept YHWH as our GOD and to accepted HIS promises of election and salvation for any future sin by our free will, election was not just a promise of heaven but the distinct promise of our marriage in heaven to the Son.

WE were not created as HIS Bride but everyone in HIS image was created with the ability and opportunity to become HIS Bride by our free will choice to put our faith in HIM.

So are you saying God's bride is Adam's offspring?

No man, only those in Adam that are the sinful elect are the sinful Bride of GOD. The reprobate are also in Adam but ...who cares. The Bride in part is the people of the kingdom sown into the world to live with the reprobate to learn to give up their idolatry of them. The holy elect angels are also part of the Bride.

The first time any mention is made of a bride belonging to God, is in regard to his relationship with the nation of Israel - the sons of Jacob.

Not all who are Jews in the flesh are Jews...not all of Israel are the Bride.

I rest my decision upon (amongst other verses): 1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. which plainly teaches that we are HIis sheep before we went astray and going astray did not make us not of HIS flock, only gone astray. The prodigal son did not cease to be in his father's family when he went to sin city and was accepted back as a family member when he repented.

In the same way it is written you have returned to the Shepherd which prompts me to ask you "When did His sheep go astray into sin when they are born in sin??? unless they sinned pre-birth like the disciples thought the man born blind did.

IF His sheep are His sheep before they sinned and NOT just when they are reborn /returned to Him your argument breaks down as once alienated and enemies then does not mean "not a sheep" but only "a sheep gone astray." To be a sheep is to be an elect, someone under HIS promise of salvation given before the foundation of the world.

Now that's what I was talking about ttruscott. I really appreciate your using scripture to explain your view. It makes it so much easier to communicate, because I can easily understand why you conclude what you believe.
I would welcome that throughout the conversation.

Thank you but not all points of doctrine are written out so plainly or there could be no controversies between sects could there? More later, very late here...

[JehovahsWitness]

I suggest you start with your first scripture, offering a detailed explanation of how you interpret it and work through your list that way. I would also suggest you write one post per scripture to avoid the posts being overly long, since there are quite a few scriptures you will be presenting a commentary on.

I look forward to reading this series of posts and appreciate the time you will be dedicating to this project JW

Not a bad suggestion but a little daunting at the book this would make.

Well you provided the list, what was it for? Decoration? You presented the scriptures, I take it you are going to use them in support of your view, which will require you writing about the scriptures presented. You don't have to follow my suggestion of one per post but an explanation for why each is there is indeed necessary.

Daunting? You wrote the list so I can only presume you are up the the task. We await the first installment with eagre anticipation!


JW

[ttruscott]

All my answers are from the pov of heterodox PCE Christian theology:

You make a good point.
Those strayed sheep you are speaking of, must have belonged to a shepherd.
Who is the shepherd? We both agree, Jehovah God, or maybe you prefer the LORD God, or YHWH.

I consider my Shepherd to be the Lord Christ...

Who are the sheep?

The sinful elect...those who can be forgiven and returned. Also Known As: the people of the kingdom sown into the world by the Son of Man, the good seed...those who are believers rather than those condemned already for non-belief, the goats.

In what way were these sheep lost?

Ummm, merely gone astray, not fully lost (unfindable)... I contend they became sinners by their free will choice (a necessary doctrine to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and to make our own guilt just) after they became HIS elect and before the creation of the physical universe , since that proof of HIS divinity and power overruled all free will decisions about HIS deity from then on.

So what could possibly have happened between their election (with the contrary aspect of the non-elect becoming eternally evil by their choice) and the proof of HIS deity? PCE theology suggests that based upon HIS holiness and HIS utter hatred of evil and in accord with Ps 5:4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. that as soon as all our choices were finished separating those who put their faith in HIM and were elected to be HIS Bride from those who put their faith in HIM being a false god and the first liar, that HE would call for the judgement against the unbelievers who had made themselves demonic by their rejection of HIS deity and HIS promises of salvation.

To ensure that HIS elect were safe from the judgment, not idolizing their friends who chose to reject HIM, HE would probably call all the elect to repudiate (come out from among) them, but some would not. Some idolized those they were friends with / loved over GOD's call to come out and became evil in HIS sight needing redemption to be safe from the effects of the judgment as HE had promised. As the parable says, the judgement needed to be postponed until the these good (elect) but sinful (liable to be pulled up with the tares) seed could be brought to harvest, that is, matured into holiness.

This is how I think the some of the elect were drawn into error, their love for the Satanic ones. Because they did it for love they do not see that their decision could have possible been to be evil. They knew YHWH thought it was evil but they did not agree and were therefore not ashamed of their love. And that's why we have to live together with the tares on earth, sharing mingled lives, to learn to focus on GOD and HIS redemption and to say goodbye to those who are truly lost.

These scriptures tell me that we were lost sheep from birth - birth after Adam.
Adam's sin led all of his offspring away from their shepherd.

I know this is orthodox but IF we are CREATED lost, how are we guilty? IF we are CREATED lost, we cannot have chosen to go astray but were put out of the flock for no reason. IF we are CREATED lost, how can it be true that we then RETURN to our Shepherd that we have never been with or in His flock or...???

Sorry, there is just no way I will ever again accept that we are created at conception or birth - Christ is HOLY only if we chose to accept election and by that choice we entered into His flock under His promise and then chose to become evil by another free will decision and so went astray from HIS loving care and His flock and then we are sown into the world by the Shepherd, born (NOT created) as sinners as His good (elect but sinful) seed ready to be redeemed and sanctified so as to be heaven ready.

[ttruscott]

Well you provided the list, what was it for? Decoration? You presented the scriptures, I take it you are going to use them in support of your view, which will require you writing about the scriptures presented

I am wondering if I did make a mistake. I am accused fairly repetitively that I do not rest on the Scriptures. I decided to forestall another accusation by posting the NUMBER I used.

I rather hoped someone might read a verse, deny it had any reference to PCE and I would then explain the connection.

Ok, I'll give it a try. I'll start something here in TD&D and maybe edit a link into here.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius.advice]

The Student asked:

Did we all exist in the spirit realm or in another realm before our birth as humans?

RESPONSE: Yes. We existed in the mind of God.

Then the Flying Spaghetti monster exists in the mind of Blastcat.
Is that where it's been hiding out all along?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well you provided the list, what was it for? Decoration? You presented the scriptures, I take it you are going to use them in support of your view, which will require you writing about the scriptures presented

I am wondering if I did make a mistake. I am accused fairly repetitively that I do not rest on the Scriptures. I decided to forestall another accusation by posting the NUMBER I used.

I rather hoped someone might read a verse, deny it had any reference to PCE and I would then explain the connection.

Ok, I'll give it a try. I'll start something here in TD&D and maybe edit a link into here.

Good for you. You obviously have a view on what is a considerably long list of scriptures, nobody can agree or disasgree with that view until you post your understanding of them.

JW

[ttruscott]

Good for you. You obviously have a view on what is a considerably long list of scriptures, nobody can agree or disasgree with that view until you post your understanding of them.
JW

I've done hardly nothing else in this forum but not in fullness.

Here's the link