In defence of Origen's belief in pre-existence

[Gregory Thompson]

Whether a theory has similarities to other (non-Christian) ideologies is irrelevant with regards to determining whether it is true or false, likely or unlikely, possible or impossible. The five ways of Thomas Aquinas have become highly respected within Catholic circles since their publication, purely on the basis of the logic of their argumentation, even though they are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and actually have more in common with Aristotelianism and Platonism than with early Patristic teachings.

I suppose it's good to know what they are so you can expect what kind of evil spirits will manifest from that tradition.

 

[TedT]

Can you point to somewhere in Genesis (or elsewhere in the bible) where pre-existence is even vaguely hinted at?

Well, the only way anyone can ignore the verses about our pre-earth existence not being like a slap in the face with a frozen fish is the power orthodox doctrine holds on people's minds.... 4,000 years of authority is hard to resist.

I do understand how elusive pce can be. I remember saying pretty much exactly the same thing back in the mid-70s when it was introduced to me. Most of my learning about it came from my dedicated opposition which forced resolutions to be found.

I will show a few verses here so you don't think I'm a complete lunatic, totally divorced from scripture. I won't dump every verse I can find, ie, all 150 of them, so please understand this is just an intro so to speak. I also hope you understand that I don't claim these are PROOF verses that can't be argued. It is obvious that these verses have had their orthodox interpretations for centuries of which I am well aware. But they do contain alternative interpretations which should be answered as to how they fail if they are rejected as pce supports.

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.

We must be careful to not mix up knowing and knowing about as they are two different things. For example, Christians know Jesus, demons know about Jesus. This difference is also brought out in Matthew 25:12 where Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not... to the five foolish virgins. He obviously knew all about them, He just did not know them. Mighty big difference! Well this also means that there is a mighty big difference between GOD knowing Jeremiah and GOD knowing about Jeremiah.

Since I believe that GOD knows about this difference then when GOD says to me that HE knew Jeremiah before his conception, I believe that GOD is sort of telling me that Jeremiah existed before his conception. If GOD was not bearing witness to Jeremiah's pre-conception existence in this verse, would you please tell me what HE was revealing? Was it HIS omniscience, that is, was HE telling Jeremiah that HE knew all about him before HE made him in the womb, that is, before he was created?

But Jeremiah needed no revelation of GOD's omniscience. Jeremiah was a priest. He was trained in the Scriptures and the Jews knew about GOD's omniscience long before his time.

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, just what would GOD have to say to Jeremiah to reveal that he existed before he was made in the womb? What would HE have to say so that Jeremiah could put it in the Book in such a way that it would not give away any secrets for 2600 years?

Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind: John 9:
1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or fhis parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

How does it make sense that the disciples ask if the man was born blind due to his own sin, if they did not believe in the pre-existence of the spirit/person able to sin before their birth on earth? Notice Jesus did not chastise them for making an error about their creation but only about the reason for his suffering.

IT is not a Jewish thing to think a man could be born being punished for a previous sin so where did they get this idea? Maybe all it took was 3 years of listening to Jesus...

Nor did He say 'no suffering is for personal sin' (as some would have it) but only that this suffering was not for sin but for the glory of the Messiah so HE could do one of the miracles that the Jews believed only the Messiah could do, to heal a man born blind.

And what if Adam and Eve were put in the garden as sinners already? Would that do it? Evidence is available!

 

[TedT]

Can you point to somewhere in Genesis (or elsewhere in the bible) where pre-existence is even vaguely hinted at?

How vague is the hint in the story of Jacob and Esau trying to murder each other in the womb because, as GOD told the mother, each wanted to be the first born because they did not know that HIS plans were for the elder to serve the younger against the Hebrew law of primogeniture.

Now, just how did these two infants in the womb come to know such things if they had just been created tabula rasa? A vague hint or a slap in the face?

And just in case you want to make a deal about them pushing each other around in the womb cannot have been attempted murder, the actual word in the Hebrew text is trying to crush each other to pieces, not much room for mere jostling for space.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The way I see "pre-existence" is that from seeing the seed, God can see everything that follows from its growth. The end and the beginning are the same to God.

The uncreated part is unscriptural since the scripture does depict God telling Jeremiah that he formed him in the womb, and in another place that he forms the souls of man from within Him.

The souls are created/formed - The uncreated bit might have been related to Origen's belief in universalism.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, the only way anyone can ignore the verses about our pre-earth existence not being like a slap in the face with a frozen fish is the power orthodox doctrine holds on people's minds.... 4,000 years of authority is hard to resist.

I do understand how elusive pce can be. I remember saying pretty much exactly the same thing back in the mid-70s when it was introduced to me. Most of my learning about it came from my dedicated opposition which forced resolutions to be found.

I will show a few verses here so you don't think I'm a complete lunatic, totally divorced from scripture. I won't dump every verse I can find, ie, all 150 of them, so please understand this is just an intro so to speak. I also hope you understand that I don't claim these are PROOF verses that can't be argued. It is obvious that these verses have had their orthodox interpretations for centuries of which I am well aware. But they do contain alternative interpretations which should be answered as to how they fail if they are rejected as pce supports.

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.

We must be careful to not mix up knowing and knowing about as they are two different things. For example, Christians know Jesus, demons know about Jesus. This difference is also brought out in Matthew 25:12 where Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not... to the five foolish virgins. He obviously knew all about them, He just did not know them. Mighty big difference! Well this also means that there is a mighty big difference between GOD knowing Jeremiah and GOD knowing about Jeremiah.

Since I believe that GOD knows about this difference then when GOD says to me that HE knew Jeremiah before his conception, I believe that GOD is sort of telling me that Jeremiah existed before his conception. If GOD was not bearing witness to Jeremiah's pre-conception existence in this verse, would you please tell me what HE was revealing? Was it HIS omniscience, that is, was HE telling Jeremiah that HE knew all about him before HE made him in the womb, that is, before he was created?

But Jeremiah needed no revelation of GOD's omniscience. Jeremiah was a priest. He was trained in the Scriptures and the Jews knew about GOD's omniscience long before his time.

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, just what would GOD have to say to Jeremiah to reveal that he existed before he was made in the womb? What would HE have to say so that Jeremiah could put it in the Book in such a way that it would not give away any secrets for 2600 years?

Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind: John 9:
1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or fhis parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

How does it make sense that the disciples ask if the man was born blind due to his own sin, if they did not believe in the pre-existence of the spirit/person able to sin before their birth on earth? Notice Jesus did not chastise them for making an error about their creation but only about the reason for his suffering.

IT is not a Jewish thing to think a man could be born being punished for a previous sin so where did they get this idea? Maybe all it took was 3 years of listening to Jesus...

Nor did He say 'no suffering is for personal sin' (as some would have it) but only that this suffering was not for sin but for the glory of the Messiah so HE could do one of the miracles that the Jews believed only the Messiah could do, to heal a man born blind.

And what if Adam and Eve were put in the garden as sinners already? Would that do it? Evidence is available!

How vague is the hint in the story of Jacob and Esau trying to murder each other in the womb because, as GOD told the mother, each wanted to be the first born because they did not know that HIS plans were for the elder to serve the younger against the Hebrew law of primogeniture.

Now, just how did these two infants in the womb come to know such things if they had just been created tabula rasa? A vague hint or a slap in the face?

And just in case you want to make a deal about them pushing each other around in the womb cannot have been attempted murder, the actual word in the Hebrew text is trying to crush each other to pieces, not much room for mere jostling for space.

How vague is the hint in the story of Jacob and Esau trying to murder each other in the womb because, as GOD told the mother, each wanted to be the first born because they did not know that HIS plans were for the elder to serve the younger against the Hebrew law of primogeniture.

Now, just how did these two infants in the womb come to know such things if they had just been created tabula rasa? A vague hint or a slap in the face?

And just in case you want to make a deal about them pushing each other around in the womb cannot have been attempted murder, the actual word in the Hebrew text is trying to crush each other to pieces, not much room for mere jostling for space.

There are no verses. I've had the same conversation with Mormons. The verses they and you use have not one single thing to do with pre-existence, it is what you want them to say. I thought this was the case----I just wanted to see what you would say. I spent many hours with the Mormon believe system and it was a total waste of time. You can take each verse and show them it doesn't say that---but they just keep insisting it does. I'm not about to waste more time. It's very easy to just say one is Christian and not state what denomination they are. Not intgerest4d in this foolishness, will unwatch thread.

 

[Kameaux]

I suppose it's good to know what they are so you can expect what kind of evil spirits will manifest from that tradition.

There are no verses. I've had the same conversation with Mormons. The verses they and you use have not one single thing to do with pre-existence, it is what you want them to say. I thought this was the case----I just wanted to see what you would say. I spent many hours with the Mormon believe system and it was a total waste of time. You can take each verse and show them it doesn't say that---but they just keep insisting it does. I'm not about to waste more time. It's very easy to just say one is Christian and not state what denomination they are. Not intgerest4d in this foolishness, will unwatch thread.

None of these are actual arguments that relate to discussing my position. Most of the rebuttals so far merely state that;

1. It isn't supported by the Bible

Neither are divine simplicity, our current conception of the trinity (being a product of both Origen and Tertullian), the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, the recipe for the eucharist, the rules and regulations for the liturgy, church gatherings on Sundays, the ascension of Mary and/or the specifications of the essence and energy distinction. Yet these all play major roles in many branches of Christianity and are attributed reliability on account of church consensus. The consensus of the clergy, however, being Catholic in nature (as they are the majority), also indicates that Protestants and Orthodox are wrong. This doesn't stop both groups from making arguments that deal with their interpretation of the Bible, to support their claims. The argument that my position isn't supported by the Bible (or the Church) is therefore, i'd argue, insufficient, with regards to determining wether it is possible.

2. Other traditions are guided by evil spirits

This is based on the presupposition that your position is right, and my position is wrong. You're making conclusions without actually substantiating them with arguments.

3. The church doesn't support the idea

Neither did the church originally support the idea of the two natures of Christ, which was only officially accepted after the council of Chalcedon in 451AD on account of the logic of the argumentation in favour of the doctrine. Many beliefs that are part of Christianity today were simply unspecified by the early church. This, also, hasn't stopped people from embracing new ideas when the arguments in favour of an unorthodox position are in line with consistent reasoning.

I've laid out the entire process for coming to my theological conclusions, yet, up until now, critics have simply redirected me to their pre-conceived notions of truth and falsehood, without dealing with the contents of my arguments.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

None of these are actual arguments that relate to discussing my position. Most of the rebuttals so far merely state that;

1. It isn't supported by the Bible

Neither are divine simplicity, our current conception of the trinity (being a product of both Origen and Tertullian), the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, the recipe for the eucharist, the rules and regulations for the liturgy, church gatherings on Sundays, the ascension of Mary and/or the specifications of the essence and energy distinction. Yet these all play major roles in many branches of Christianity and are attributed reliability on account of church consensus. The consensus of the clergy, however, being Catholic in nature (as they are the majority), also indicates that Protestants and Orthodox are wrong. This doesn't stop both groups from making arguments that deal with their interpretation of the Bible, to support their claims. The argument that my position isn't supported by the Bible (or the Church) is therefore, i'd argue, insufficient, with regards to determining wether it is possible.

2. Other traditions are guided by evil spirits

This is based on the presupposition that your position is right, and my position is wrong. You're making conclusions without actually substantiating them with arguments.

3. The church doesn't support the idea

Neither did the church originally support the idea of the two natures of Christ, which was only officially accepted after the council of Chalcedon in 451AD on account of the logic of the argumentation in favour of the doctrine. Many beliefs that are part of Christianity today were simply unspecified by the early church. This, also, hasn't stopped people from embracing new ideas when the arguments in favour of an unorthodox position are in line with consistent reasoning.

I've laid out the entire process for coming to my theological conclusions, yet, up until now, critics have simply redirected me to their pre-conceived notions of truth and falsehood, without dealing with the contents of my arguments.

Resurrection and reincarnation are incompatible. Let's start there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you point to somewhere in Genesis (or elsewhere in the bible) where pre-existence is even vaguely hinted at?

Genesis 1:1 states the original creation, and is a standalone statement. Verses 2 onward describes the renewal of the surface of a pre-existing earth, an earth that by several accounts was originally made for the angels.

 

[Eftsoon]

so hyperbole perhaps.

Perhaps, yes

 

[Eftsoon]

Whether God needs to create or not is, in my opinion, irrelevant. The fact is that God does create, whether He needs to or not. And creating, regardless of whether that which creates does so out of necessity or free-will, is certainly an indicator of activity. If the factor that creates is unchanging, it must therefore have always created. If the act of creating is part of God now, and if God can't change, it must have been always part of Him. If it wasn't, God underwent change. This doesn't refute God's free-will. If God has always created He has always done so through free-will, by the fact that He is completely independent. The act of creating could simply be considered what God is, in similar fashion as God is often argued to be His own existence. In the same way that God can't deny His own existence He can't deny his creative energy either, if this theory is correct.

This doesn't mean that God is dependent on the material order. The material order is still dependent on God as it's foundation, as God by his unchanging nature is the only thing with a complete independent existence. Everything else therefore participates in the existence of God. Within the boundaries of this theory creation could be conceived to have an eternal creative relationship with the creator, as within the trinity the Son has an eternal generative relationship to the Father, but have always existed as a whole.

My gripe is with the limited definition of cretivity. I don't believe that God needs to be crafting material orders to be creative.

 

[TedT]

The way I see "pre-existence" is that from seeing the seed, God can see everything that follows from its growth. The end and the beginning are the same to God.

Technically since nothing can exist before its existence, the term pre-existence is meaningless unless referring to GOD's existence prior to our own. The term to refer to our existence in the Spirit world before the creation of the physical universe and the human system refer to an existence before earth or before conception: pre-earth existence or pre-conception existence.

 

[TedT]

You can take each verse and show them it doesn't say that---but they just keep insisting it does. I'm not about to waste more time.

You are welcome to your opinion which is all you have expressed. If you can express yours, I can express mine. I am not didactic; I suggest things to talk about with the Holy Spirit.

The pharisees expressed their opinion about the Messiah as they scorned Him to His face. GOD did a right angle turn on them and by this HE separated those who were following HIS Spirit from those who loved only their religious status.

 

[TedT]

Resurrection and reincarnation are incompatible. Let's start there.

Neither Kameaux nor I have made any referrence to reincarnation ...only you have done that. When you apply that doctrine to us you are definitely wrong about my take on our pce and are probably wrong about Kameaux also.

If you want to argue these terms mean the same thing, put forth the argument but to start by accepting they are the same...<head shake>.

 

[TedT]

dbl post

 

[TedT]

Here is another vague hint that we are NOT created on earth but are moved here from somewhere else:

The Parable of the Weeds Explained
A funny thing is here - so few commentaries deal with the following verses as an EXPLANATION without metaphor or hyperbole or any quirk of linguistic expression and immediately certify that it means: “The good seed,” says Baxter, “as sown, is the gospel..." or some such when Jesus tells us plainly at face value that the seeds represent PEOPLE! People just cannot see or read what is plainly written when blinded by eisegesis.

Matt 13:36 Then Jesus dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples came to Him and said, “EXPLAIN to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons [PEOPLE] of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons [PEOPLE] of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

Now, for the intransigent who refuse to accept sowing must refer to taking seeds from a place of storage (Sheol) and scattering them in a place of growth (the world) and instead refers to our creation, then I must point out that then the devil creates also.

As for Sheol being the place of storage it is a reasonable implication of Ps 9:17 The wicked shall RETURN/SHUB to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. So damaging is this vague hint to the created on earth concept that many translators falsely interpret RETURN as to go or turn into, to go down to with no idea of return when the word shub distinctly means to return, to go back to, just like it does in English.

The wicked shall be turned into hell...This is a most unfortunate rendering. The true translation is, the wicked shall return, as in LXX. and Vulg. (not “be turned”) to the grave, i.e., to dust, according to the doom in Genesis 3:19, or to the unseen world, as in Job 30:23; Psalm 90:1-3; or the verbs may be imperative, as in LXX. and Vulg., let them return.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Technically since nothing can exist before its existence, the term pre-existence is meaningless unless referring to GOD's existence prior to our own. The term to refer to our existence in the Spirit world before the creation of the physical universe and the human system refer to an existence before earth or before conception: pre-earth existence or pre-conception existence.

Neither Kameaux nor I have made any referrence to reincarnation ...only you have done that. When you apply that doctrine to us you are definitely wrong about my take on our pce and are probably wrong about Kameaux also.

If you want to argue these terms mean the same thing, put forth the argument but to start by accepting they are the same...<head shake>.

Well, as it stands, what you have said doesn't yet make sense.

So debating a point that doesn't yet make sense to the person you're debating it to, results in apathy to the results of the conversation.

I read through the OP and saw it was talking about reincarnation of souls that were born in other worlds etc, I was criticized for using any reference to the scripture or Christian teachings - so it leaves a question mark what you were talking about. Thus the "defence" can be counted as a fail thus far.

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus was aware of His existence before creation.

John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.​

Jesus said there are some people who He never knew.

Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

 

[Davy]

In this thread i'd like to lay-out my arguments that, in my opinion, rule out the possibility of Origen being a mere heretic when he speaks about controversial subjects relating to theology. I will defend both his view of the possibility of previous worlds and the pre-existence of the soul as summarised within his book ''on the first principles''.
....

Those at the Alexadria school were in a area where Neo-Platonist philosophy abounded. I believe it influenced those early Church fathers there like Origen and Clement.

Does God's Word attest to the existence of a previous world earth age prior to this present one? Yes.

Does God's Word attest to pre-existence of the soul? Not really.

Does God's Word attest to the pre-existence of angels in a previous world? Yes.

In the old world before this one we're in today, back then is when Satan originally was 'perfect' in his ways according to the parable in Ezekiel 28. So there had to have been at least one previous world before this present one. That's as far as God's Word goes back though, hinting at it using allegory and parable.

 

[Saint Steven]

I remember coming home from work one day, plonking myself down on the couch (it had been a long day) and sat there thinking. My son came in, saw me staring in the direction of the TV which wasn't on and queried "what was I doing?". I told him I was thinking. He responded "Oh so you are dong nothing?"; to which I said "no, I am thinking". He insisted that must mean I was doing nothing so I told him to tell his father what I was doing and whether or not that meant I was doing nothing. His father responded "that's dangerous!".

I wasn't producing anything that could be seen or was not me yet I was very active. I see no reason why God is forced to produce something outside of Himself in order to maintain activity.

Reminds me of "the nothing box".

Men's Brains and Women's Brains with Mark Gungor (Nothing Box)

 

[Basil the Great]

As I recall, Origen was probably the most prolific writer among the Early Church Fathers. Surely Christians can find much good in his writings, despite some of his views being controversial.