A challenge to PCE (again)

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

A challenge to PCE (again)

Post #1

Post by Justin108 »

ttruscott wrote: If you (generally, not specifically) made your choice 6000 + yrs ago yet have repressed that memory for your love of sin...
According to Ted (ttruscott), after our sin pre-Earth, we all chose to willingly repress our own memory (at least that is how I understand it).

Question for debate: If repressing our memory was a choice, would we not expect some of us to choose to not repress our memory? Isn't it a bit odd that every single person on earth made this exact same choice to repress our memory? Surely if we truly had a choice in the matter, some of us would have chosen to not repress our memory, right?

So the way I see it, either
a) Losing our memory was not our choice
b) By some massive coincidence, every single one of us made the exact same choice to repress our own memory
c) Other (please specify)

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #2

Post by Elijah John »

Seems just one problem with PCE theology. I would like to see the notion of pre-conception existence supported by Biblical evidence in the first place.

That is my challenge, on top of the one you have made.

Unless I misunderstand, PCE theology is a reprehensible in it's implications, what with the notion of "guilty babies and all.

But so is the idea of "original sin" or inherited guilt.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #3

Post by Justin108 »

Elijah John wrote: Seems just one problem with PCE theology. I would like to see the notion of pre-conception existence supported by Biblical evidence in the first place.

That is my challenge, on top of the one you have made.
I've tried this angle before. Ted will tell you that PCE is a "secret dogma" and uses this excuse to justify the absurd, unlikely interpretations of Biblical verses to support his claim. Think of it as National Treasure or the Da Vinci Code. Using his "secret dogma" argument, Ted will essentially agree with you that his interpretation is less likely and less obvious but that this less-than-obvious interpretation is intentional to hide this "secret dogma". So I've given up on reasoning with him in this manner and instead I've started pointing out the rational flaws inherent in his dogma.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: A challenge to PCE (again)

Post #4

Post by ttruscott »

Justin108 wrote:
ttruscott wrote: If you (generally, not specifically) made your choice 6000 + yrs ago yet have repressed that memory for your love of sin...
According to Ted (ttruscott), after our sin pre-Earth, we all chose to willingly repress our own memory (at least that is how I understand it).
You have an abysmal record of making assumptions about PCE theology that are not implied and then writing long dissertations upon these wrong assumptions.

We DID NOT CHOOSE to willingly repress our own memories. It happens due to the nature of our sinfulness naturally. It is an inevitable part of the progression of sinfulness, the desire to sin and to love sin that also slowly clouds the mind, I think.

This is my reading of Romans 1 from the pov of our pre-earth lives. The Church has believed this for centuries - they just don't take is as far back into prehistory as I do...perhaps a Catholic commentary upon Rom 1 might be more meaningful to you.
Question for debate: If repressing our memory was a choice, would we not expect some of us to choose to not repress our memory?
There is no debate to be had for this question as it is empty of meaning being based upon a wrong premise: we did not choose to repress our memories and neither did we want to stop the process.

I think or suppose that being born into immature bodies that are not equipped to think or retain memories might have something to do with it too but that is speculation since the Bible says quite emphatically it is due to our love for sin that we forget the truth.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #5

Post by ttruscott »

Elijah John wrote: Seems just one problem with PCE theology. I would like to see the notion of pre-conception existence supported by Biblical evidence in the first place.
Good morning,

If one rejects the interpretation of a verse that supports a doctrine as wrongly interpreted, then is that doctrine not supported (as you have many times claimed) or is that doctrine supported but ignored as wrongly decided? To claim the Bible doesn't support PCE no matter what you personally believe is unacceptable because I obviously have a different interpretation of the Bible, (not just our reality) that must be adjudicated. And that list of verses I offer in support contains dozens of allusions to our PCE, many of which I have not bothered to offer up.

I find PCE to be one of the most supported doctrines of Christianity, so why does no one else? The ancient Churches have had 4000 some years of interpreting the Bible about these things. By being accepted so long as the truth, people cannot even see that a verse might be supportive of PCE, the orthodox interpretation that we are created on earth is just too ingrained. The merest mention that a word can be taken two ways causes outcries of dismay... Indeed, I try ot offer up Bible supports as often as I can and no one argues against the PCE interpretation of the verses, only the PCE concepts.

Another pit fall is that the more verses I show can be seen to support PCE, the more outcry there is that I am just a master of distortion and so many verses does not show PCE to be in the Bible but only that I can make things up like no one else. In other words, dead men DO bleed.

So it takes a fairly open mind or a mind that can read something from a new pov but hold their rejection of it in abeyance until they understand it, ie, not knee jerk it out of consideration without any understanding. But all this is moot in that none of it has any salvational value at all. To me, the understanding that PCE taught that all my life was my fault and not some arbitrary decision of a God was wonderful but then the implication for what it means about humans in general is pretty harsh as many have mentioned.

Whether all death and disaster is natural or is a judgement, at least one theologically Christian pov can be seen to be logically based upon our free will before a righteous GOD who did not make us as sinners in Adam for no reason at all. Where is the horror in that?

No one has ever found a verse that even hints that PCE is contrary to good bible exegesis. I am also willing to present my Bible supports here or in a new topic as I have started to do in the past but which was ignored...just not enough people here that depend upon the Bible for their direction, maybe.

Do I have to prove that Adam and Eve's nakedness was really referring to their sinfulness before they ate the fruit or is it enough to show that this interpretation is within the words used in the story? Is it enough to show that the disciples may have thought that a man could sin before his birth and so be born blind or do I have to prove this is the true interpretation before it can be seen as viable? I am not Sisyphus to labour at the impossible - doctrine cannot be proven but only suggested as all sectarian differences prove.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #6

Post by ttruscott »

Justin108 wrote: So I've given up on reasoning with him in this manner and instead I've started pointing out the rational flaws inherent in his dogma.
And I contend that ALL your supposed rational flaws were all straw man arguments that were based upon a serious misunderstanding of PCE and therefore moot.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #7

Post by Elijah John »

ttruscott wrote:
Do I have to prove that Adam and Eve's nakedness was really referring to their sinfulness before they ate the fruit or is it enough to show that this interpretation is within the words used in the story?
Good morning Ted.

OK, let's start there, then. The traditional understanding is that their nakedness symbolizes their innocence before the fall. ("fall" = eating the forbidden fruit).

How does that condition symbolize their sinfulness?
ttruscott wrote: Is it enough to show that the disciples may have thought that a man could sin before his birth and so be born blind or do I have to prove this is the true interpretation before it can be seen as viable? I am not Sisyphus to labour at the impossible - doctrine cannot be proven but only suggested as all sectarian differences prove.
This is a tougher one. Perhaps in additon to refuting the notion that disability is caused by sin, Jesus was also refuting the notion that folks had a pre-existence at all.

Ahh...but Jesus DID refute the notion that folks were disabled because of sin...so doesn't that in and of itself refute the doctrine of PCE?

Perhaps reincarnaton was a popular mis conception going around at the time, a superstition not taught in Judaism but believed by some common people anyway. Like folk-magic.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #8

Post by ttruscott »

Elijah John wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
Do I have to prove that Adam and Eve's nakedness was really referring to their sinfulness before they ate the fruit or is it enough to show that this interpretation is within the words used in the story?
Good morning Ted.

OK, let's start there, then. The traditional understanding is that their nakedness symbolizes their innocence before the fall. ("fall" = eating the forbidden fruit).

How does that condition symbolize their sinfulness?
I believe this fails in a few ways:
1. the root of the word naked, arm, is used of unclothed nakedness and also is used for the cunning subtlety of the serpent. The only difference is in the vowels added 600 AD or so. In the original of Gen 2:25, these words were spelled exactly the same and it was tradition and context that was used to give them their interpretation. So without a created on earth bias, the possibility that A&E were sinners and the serpent naked exists in the words.

2. When they ate, their eyes were opened to their sin and they saw their nakedness, not their eating, and they were ashamed. Nothing about their nakedness changed but now it was shameful. IF their nakedness referred to their innocence, then after they ate they had no innocence and could not be naked anymore! They could be ashamed of being clothed with sin but being ashamed of innocence the way it is written, nakedness interpreted as innocence makes no sense at all.

3. Nowhere that I can find in the Bible is nakedness used as a metaphor for innocence except, it is suggested, here, but only of sin. Dirty ragged clothing is a main metaphor for being sinful. Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. ties being naked in sin firmly to being blinded to righteousness. It is interesting that Adam and Eve IF they were sinners before they are are ashamed then they were indeed blind to their shame until their eyes were opened.

4. Starting with the uniquely Jewish and Christian pov that YHWH is benevolent, then how HE seems to have treated them, on the surface anyway, is pretty harsh. They are supposedly innocents and inexperienced yet GOD does nothing to keep the serpent from them or to warn them of the serpents intent! ?? Is this how our GOD operates?

Did HE bless them with the serpent? Psalm 32:2 How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit! for if they were innocent they were indeed without iniquity and deceit.

Did HE not kill them by giving the serpent access to them with no support? Exodus 23:7 "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

It does not make any sense at all that HE treated them this way ...BUT, if they were already sinners but refusing to accept that what they did was a sin (as most unrepentant sinners do) letting the serpent have access to them so they could be tested in their obedience and by failing in obedience prove to themselves they were indeed sinners so they could be ashamed and repent, it was indeed all very good!

5. Indeed the law is given to convict us of sin not to tempt us into sin: Rom 7:7... I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. and Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. with James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.� For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. This proves there is something hinky about commanding innocents to obey a law since the law is given to convict us of sin by our inability, unwillingness, to keep it.

That is how I find a thoughtful interpretation that agrees with the bulk of the rest of scripture to be preferable to a slap dash interpretation riding on a created on earth bias.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #9

Post by ttruscott »

Elijah John wrote:
ttruscott wrote: Is it enough to show that the disciples may have thought that a man could sin before his birth and so be born blind or do I have to prove this is the true interpretation before it can be seen as viable? I am not Sisyphus to labour at the impossible - doctrine cannot be proven but only suggested as all sectarian differences prove.
This is a tougher one. Perhaps in addition to refuting the notion that disability is caused by sin, Jesus was also refuting the notion that folks had a pre-existence at all.
But He did NOT refute that pre-birth sin can cause a birth defect, because if we accept that interpretation, then it must also be accepted the the parents were also sinless and that goes against the vast majority of orthodox Church dogma. Therefore it is obvious that the phrase 'neither he nor his parents sinned' modifies the following phrase but to show forth the glory of GOD in his healing without the phrase being any kind of declaration about their being sinless or not.

Here is my problem....even before I ever heard of PCE I rejected this teaching as not following what was written. I had no idea of how to interpret it but I knew the sinless interpretation was wrong because I had just converted to a "we are all sinners" theology.
Ahh...but Jesus DID refute the notion that folks were disabled because of sin...so doesn't that in and of itself refute the doctrine of PCE?
IF that is what He meant of course. I am not trying to count coup here - I just want my meaning to be recognized in theological fashion as a possibility, then we can decide which is more possible, PCE or an interpretation that doesn't make any theological sense if it is accepted...the parents were in deed sinful! To claim the phrase means the baby wasn't sinful is to say the parents were not sinful either. So I have no trouble rejecting this interpretation as it contradicts a major Christian doctrine that all people are sinful...
Perhaps reincarnaton was a popular mis conception going around at the time, a superstition not taught in Judaism but believed by some common people anyway. Like folk-magic.
Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul wrote:
The notion of reincarnation, while held as a mystical belief by some, is not an essential tenet of traditional Judaism. ... Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), however, teaches a belief in gilgul, transmigration of souls, and hence the belief is universal in Hasidic Judaism, which regards the Kabbalah as sacred and authoritative.
So before the Hasids, who knows? but the rabbinic teaching of the creation of our souls is clear:
In rabbinic literature, the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation (Book of Genesis). When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). Tan., Pekude, 3: http://tinyurl.com/cnpetph
See also: Bible scholar to put Jewish spin on original sin: http://www.jweekly.com/2011/11/18/bible ... ginal-sin/

Catholicism which accepts The Wisdom of Solomon as scripture believes The Wisdom of Solomon 8:20(NEB) As a child, I was born to excellence and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body ......
(JB) - I was a boy of happy disposition. I had received a good soul as my lot, or that, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.
as the word of GOD but persecutes anyone who teaches this as a doctrine.

So I believe I find myself in good theological company no matter how aggressively people here condemn the uniqueness of my take on our creation and fall...
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: A challenge to PCE (again)

Post #10

Post by Justin108 »

ttruscott wrote: We DID NOT CHOOSE to willingly repress our own memories. It happens due to the nature of our sinfulness naturally.
Stay with me here
- God designed our nature
- God designed how our nature would respond to sin
- God designed it so that when introduced to sin, our nature would repress memory
- Ergo, God repressed our memory
ttruscott wrote: t is an inevitable part of the progression of sinfulness, the desire to sin and to love sin that also slowly clouds the mind, I think.
Nothing is inevitable to God. God could have designed our mind to be immune to this deteriorating memory effect of sin. He didn't and so it is his fault we lost our memory. He was the one that designed minds that deteriorate when introduced to sin.
ttruscott wrote: I think or suppose that being born into immature bodies that are not equipped to think or retain memories might have something to do with it too but that is speculation
Ted, your entire dogma is speculation. Why stop now?

If our immature bodies are not equipped to retain memories, then God is to blame for designing bodies that are not equipped to retain memories. Ergo, God is to blame for our memory loss

Post Reply