The Source of the Trinity

[fat wee robin]

Hi FWR, I not following some of this. For instance, what is the "chance" we are given to "recreate ourselves" (and what does it mean to "recreate ourselves", exactly)? How does this "recreation" happen?

Also, did the Jews of the OT have no opportunity to be "renewed"* after they sinned? Did they have no chance to begin again? If not, why did they bother with the animal sacrifices?

*(BTW, is being "renewed" and being "forgiven" synonymous in this case)

Finally, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about Christian "evolution" How does the HS help someone reach the "next state or stage of evolution", and what is different about a person when they reach that "state"?

Thanks for your help!

--David

It's important to understand Athanasius and the entire Nicean council didn't meet to discuss whether the Logos was created or not. They met to discuss what the Logos was made of. Until the time of Arius, they had no problem saying the Logos was created, born, generated, birthed, begotten, etc. All early church fathers understood the context of the Word's creation - namely He was literally begotten of God the Father before time. As kind begets its own kind, God begets God. Prior to being begotten, the Logos (and Wisdom, the Holy Spirit) were within the Father as His Reason and Wisdom. So they always existed within the Father, and then were birthed in eternity past as His only begotten Son. So they always existed, but there was a specific "time" in eternity that they were begotten - they were "brought forth."

But Arius was now claiming the Logos was not begotten from the Father's bosom, but was created out of nothing, and that there was a time where He did not exist. He was hardly taken seriously until his teaching began to spread. Once a threat, this teaching created massive division within the church. Constantine then calls the council together in an effort to unite the church. They agree that the Son was not made from nothing, but made from the very essence of the Father, which makes the Son eternally existent. Again, no argument as to whether the Son was born of the Father ever took place. The creed - crafted from earlier church father's teachings - dealt with the Son's substance, not His creation other than to say He was created from "Very God."

From here, Athanasius began to be very careful with the word created, and since that time, a new theology of "eternally begotten" began - especially promoted by Augustine, and later Western theology in general. It's a small shift, but a shift nonetheless - one that very nearly promotes three gods.

So your answer on where the Holy Spirit comes from depends on how far you want to go back. I choose to listen to the earliest of church fathers as they interpret the Scriptures. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Hippolytus are all clear and agree with each other. The Word and Wisdom (Son and Spirit) were existent within the Father, and begotten as One. Both derive their existence from the Father, though you can correctly argue that, like Eve came from Adam, the Spirit was brought forth from the begotten Son, though at no point was the Father, Son or Spirit ever separated in essence.

9443"]We humans came into reality a short time ago.... God the Father has never experienced being created... If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes forms throughout the eternities. And these are the properties of God the Father, he cannot be created or destroyed. I have often thought on the following verse...

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: - genesis 3:2

Man is become as one of us... To know good and evil... My gosh! What a statement! And I wonder what transpired in eternities past for the Father God to make such a statement. The trinity is tough to explain even for the best of us!

[/QUOTE]
Thankyou for this ,so clear to me ,and what I have always felt ,while being deeply unconfortable with the "three Persons in One God " ,which as you say seems like three gods . It in fact might be one of the reasons why some Jews over time have automatically denied Christianity as being 'pagan' ,while not knowing that the E.O. never held those ideas . The RCC is responsible , and the protestant follow their lead ,while confusing so many people who 'feel ', something is wrong .
There is only One God, who from , emanates the Son , and the Spirit .

 

[fat wee robin]

My sentiment is that either description of God is acceptable. Saying, "with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified" is acceptable in any case.

One of the greatest attributes of scripture, is that it leaves some room for freedom of thought -because words can only reveal so much. To be "with the father and the son", doesn't really take anything from those who see the Father as more dominant.

...Can we not celebrate any freedom of interpretation?

Love the Prof ....Proff..... glad to know its spelling is universal problem ,not just mine .

 

[Paul Yohannan]

9443"]We humans came into reality a short time ago.... God the Father has never experienced being created... If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes forms throughout the eternities. And these are the properties of God the Father, he cannot be created or destroyed. I have often thought on the following verse...

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: - genesis 3:2

Man is become as one of us... To know good and evil... My gosh! What a statement! And I wonder what transpired in eternities past for the Father God to make such a statement. The trinity is tough to explain even for the best of us!

Thankyou for this ,so clear to me ,and what I have always felt ,while being deeply unconfortable with the "three Persons in One God " ,which as you say seems like three gods . It in fact might be one of the reasons why some Jews over time have automatically denied Christianity as being 'pagan' ,while not knowing that the E.O. never held those ideas . The RCC is responsible , and the protestant follow their lead ,while confusing so many people who 'feel ', something is wrong .
There is only One God, who from , emanates the Son , and the Spirit .[/QUOTE]

This is not true; the Eastern Orthodox firmly believe that there are three persons in one God; the Athanasian Creed exists in an Orthodox recension. We believe the Son and Spirit are begotten by and proceed from the Father, but they are not emanations of the Father, but separate persons; emanationism is a Gnostic theological concept which we reject utterly.

What is more, we believe that these three persons, who are equally God, coequal, coeternal and uncreated, who share in the divine essence of the Father and who are all three worshipped and glorified, comprise one being with one harmonized divine will, existing in a union of perfect love.

Thus the Holy Trinity is not just a description of God, but also a template for how humans are to live. We are called to make ourselves living icons of the Trinity, in our families, in the church, at work, in our social relations, and in human civilization as a whole. God wants us to be perfect; to be one; to love each other as we love ourselves, and by loving God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with our heart, mind and soul, we can proceed down this path of theosis or deification, which is the Orthodox understanding of salvation.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

My sentiment is that either description of God is acceptable. Saying, "with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified" is acceptable in any case.

One of the greatest attributes of scripture, is that it leaves some room for freedom of thought -because words can only reveal so much. To be "with the father and the son", doesn't really take anything from those who see the Father as more dominant.

...Can we not celebrate any freedom of interpretation?

In Orthodoxy we have a concept of theologoumemna, or acceptable theological opinions.

However, the Creed is infallible amd authoritative, and the Roman Catholic Church agreed at both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon not to modify it; the Roman Catholic Church later agreed to remove the filioque to restore communion with St. Photius, but a few decades later, reneged on that promise.

The content of the creed is not a matter furthermore of interpretation, but of original source material. In Orthodoxy, you can interpret the creed however you wish provided you do so in accordance with the doctrinal statements of the Ecumenical Councils, their anathemas, and Holy Tradition. But you cannot tamper with the wording.

 

[Noxot]

only a personality can love. souls are more fundamental to reality than the laws of this universe are. the aeon thing is true because the ancient of days revealed that it was in many ways in the bible. why people reject the endless process of the soul (which is love) is beyond me.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

As far as I remember, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim there's no salvation outside of their Church. If it's the reason, I can hardly see God condemning somebody to damnation because he thought that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

This is not true in the case of the Orthodox. We know where the Church is; we do not know where it is not. That is to say, God will have mercy on who he will have mercy, and we pray for the salvation and union of all Christians. We simply regard Orthodoxy as the fullness of the Truth.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has stated that Christians who remain piously in their own tradition can certainly be saved; St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco advises us not to even worry about the salvation of other Christians, because they worship a savior who loves them, but to instead focus on our own salvation.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

only a personality can love. souls are more fundamental to reality than the laws of this universe are. the aeon thing is true because the ancient of days revealed that it was in many ways in the bible. why people reject the endless process of the soul (which is love) is beyond me.

Eh?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Neither do I. Origen was baptized Orthodox, in communion with the Orthodox, and died an Orthodox. He was also a confessor; he was forced by the evil Roman pagans to burn off his own manhood in lieu of sacrificing to the Roman Gods (contrary to popular belief, he did not castrate himself for other reasons; I believe it was Eusebius of Caesarea who popularized that, and Eusebius was in fact an Arian sympathizer and thus arguably did not die in the peace of the church).

Later, a Roman Emperor decided he had the power to anathematize a dead man, who could not repent.



The council did not anathematize him; St. Justinian did, as he had just anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus in order to appease us, and I believe he included Origen as well in the interests of pleasing the long-brewing anti-Origen movement. Which did not include the Cappadocians; indeed, of the major church fathers of the 4th century only St. Epiphanius, who I do admire, except on this point, blamed Arianism on him, and St. Jerome concurred.



When I first converted to Orthodoxy, I tilted at a few windmills, criticizing Catholics for the filioque, criticizing Protestants for this and that, but I reccommend as a general rule that the newly baptized focus instead on learning all of the liturgical services of the Church, reading the Prologue of Ohrid, The Orthodox Way, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, and the works of the Fathers, particularly St. Athanasius, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, and Epiphanius of Salamis, and indeed, Origen, through the anthology of "safe" writings the Cappadocians compiled, the Philocalia.

In terms of polemics, its generally best to focus on those churches the Orthodox Church is not actively in the process of restoring ecumenical relations with, but which are instead trying to proselytize in our native lands.

It is easy when we come to the Orthodox church to say "Wow, this is so much better than what we had before!" but, one can then fall into a triumphalism which actually alienates prospective converts to Orthodoxy.

On CF.com in particular, furthermore, there are many areas of apologetics one can engage in, with non-Christians or people who reject the Trinity, where Orthodox doctrine can help win arguments, because, for example, the New Atheist apologists who come here are relying on books by Dawkins et al which were written targeting a strawman charicature of Orthodoxy; they cannot handle Orthodox arguments. Indeed, I saw once as a lurker in Christian Apologetics the tragicomic spectacle of a New Atheist accusing an Orthodox member of trolling and wasting his time, because the Orthodox Christian was presenting an understanding of Christianity that simply did not accord with the man's preconceived categories.

I don't really want to argue with you. If you want to start a thread asserting the council didn't pronounce the anathemas, only the Emperor did, or any of the other positions you evidently have a strong desire to express yourself on, I'd be more than happy to participate, since I have very high regard for Saint Emperor Justinian for saving the Church from syncretism (and I'm not just referring to Origen).

I read Saint Maximos the Confessor, Saint John of the Ladder, the Philokalia, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, among others. I've already read both the The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by His Eminence Kallistos. But I appreciate your concern.

Thank you for your advice on polemic focus, but this is not the only place I post on, and I am not going to stop being critical of things like the Filioque simply because the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome are best friends. If I appear excessively focused on Catholics, it is precisely because of the ecumenicism you mentioned increasingly tries to muddle the major differences between Orthodox and Catholics. When evangelizing to the non-religious, one question I get all the time is, "What's the difference between Catholics and Orthodox?" Ecumenicism likes to focus on de-emphasizing differences, but that's really not helpful so long as these differences actually exist.

We have no native land, for we are the Catholic Church, and our home is the Kingdom of God.

 

[toLiJC]

The Kingdom of God is simply the Church

not exactly, the Church could save many humans in this world, while the Kingdom of God could be mostly in heaven without the Church in this world

it's what is contrasted with the world. It's what is subject to God's reign, as opposed to Satan's reign.

You're over-analyzing that verse, the Bible is not the Da Vinci Code.

i don't claim the Bible is the da vinci code, but nevertheless there are many things therein hard to be understood only by reading:

2 Peter 3:15-16 "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

so it matters how we understand the Scripture, there are many biblical words, phrases and passages whose language is kind of figurative in addition to not a few spiritual things that are hard to be understood

Blessings

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

not exactly, the Church could save many humans in this world, while the Kingdom of God could be mostly in heaven without the Church in this world

The Church includes God's faithful in heaven. Including the angels.

i don't claim the Bible is the da vinci code, but nevertheless there are many things therein hard to be understood only by reading:

2 Peter 3:15-16 "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

so it matters how we understand the Scripture, there are many biblical words, phrases and passages whose language is kind of figurative in addition to not a few spiritual things that are hard to be understood

Blessings

Yeah, poetic language is used a lot, but it's not that baroque. Allegories that are a bit more complex in the Old Testament are discerned through using the New Testament as a lens, and allegories in the New Testament are explained by Christ.

It's true that full understanding is not something you can just get by reading, it takes a lot of contrition, prayer and fasting to start to gain serious discernment. But this discernment has nothing to do with figuring out codes.

 

[toLiJC]

Yeah, poetic language is used a lot, but it's not that baroque. Allegories that are a bit more complex in the Old Testament are discerned through using the New Testament as a lens, and allegories in the New Testament are explained by Christ.

It's true that full understanding is not something you can just get by reading, it takes a lot of contrition, prayer and fasting to start to gain serious discernment. But this discernment has nothing to do with figuring out codes.

i meant neither a poetic language nor a baroque style nor any thing of this king, but i talked about the particularity of the biblical language, which is strongly spiritual, here is an example of this:

Revelation 11:8 "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt"

what codes?!, we are not in c.i.a.

Blessings

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I don't really want to argue with you. If you want to start a thread asserting the council didn't pronounce the anathemas, only the Emperor did, or any of the other positions you evidently have a strong desire to express yourself on, I'd be more than happy to participate, since I have very high regard for Saint Emperor Justinian for saving the Church from syncretism (and I'm not just referring to Origen).

I read Saint Maximos the Confessor, Saint John of the Ladder, the Philokalia, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, among others. I've already read both the The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by His Eminence Kallistos. But I appreciate your concern.

Thank you for your advice on polemic focus, but this is not the only place I post on, and I am not going to stop being critical of things like the Filioque simply because the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome are best friends. If I appear excessively focused on Catholics, it is precisely because of the ecumenicism you mentioned increasingly tries to muddle the major differences between Orthodox and Catholics. When evangelizing to the non-religious, one question I get all the time is, "What's the difference between Catholics and Orthodox?" Ecumenicism likes to focus on de-emphasizing differences, but that's really not helpful so long as these differences actually exist.

We have no native land, for we are the Catholic Church, and our home is the Kingdom of God.

Ecumenical reconciliation however is the specific focus of the Eastern Orthodox episcopate. With the exception of the Old Calendarists, all of the autocephalous churches are now involved in ecumenical reconciliation on some level, and have been since the 19th century, when the Coptic and Alexandrian churches attempted to reunite, but were blocked by the Muslim Khedive, who feared the power of a reunified Orthodox church in Egypt. As a laic of the church you are obliged to respect the episcopal authorities; there are a number of converts who join, get led astray by websites like orthodoxinfo.com, and then develop a radical objection to the "pan heresy of ecumenism," but among the established faithful, very few are opposed to the process of ecumenical reunion actually being taken, which does not involve doctrinal compromise. For example, on the issue of the filioque, we will not be joining Rome in communion until Rome either removes it or issues a statement defining it in a manner consistent with Orthodox theology (if they say that the Spirit was sent by the Son, that would be accurate).

What is already happening is the reunion of the Eastern and Oriental churches. The two churches of Antioch pray for Metropolitans Gregorios and Paul Yazigi, who were abducted from Aleppo, during their liturgy, and commune each others laity in the Middle East. A similiar arrangement exists between the Greek and Coptic Patriarchates of Alexandria and the Church of Sinai.

St. Justinian did not save the Orthodox Church from syncretism, if by syncretism you mean saving the Eastern Orthodox from Oriental Orthodox influences; he directly infused Oriental Orthodox theology and liturgy into the spiritual life of the Eastern Orthodox, but with the Three Chapters schism, and other problems, his wife St. Helena realized that the Oriental Church needed to continue as a separate entity due to the risks of the Empire reverting to crypto Nestorianism, or falling into other heresies (and indeed that happened; iconoclasm was officially sanctioned by the Empire, but the OO never succumbed to this heresy (which is really a form of Nestorianism).

While the recent EO Pan Orthodox council was not a great success mainly due to poor leadership from Constantinople (His Beatitude the Pope of Alexandria tried to salvage it, but the Ecumenical Patriarchate has serious issues), two decisions it made that were very positive were the use of the word churches to describe those ecclesia the EO are not in communion with, and it also strongly implicitly the Old Calendarist churches, which I believe are becoming increasingly cult-like and corrupt (see the recent sexual abuse scandal involving ex-Elder Panteleimon and HOCNA, which had allegedly broken away from ROCOR in the 1980s due to charges of "ecumenism", but it was really to shut down ROCOR's investigation of Elder Panteleimon and the reports of sexual abuse at Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

It is lamentable that HTM still dominates the market for English language translations of the service books with Byzantine chant notation, for example, their Pentecostarion (which I dont use; mine was published by St. John of Kronstadt Press, which is also Old Calendarist, but the translator at least was a canonical Orthodox who received a blessing from his bishop to publish with them).

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Ecumenical reconciliation however is the specific focus of the Eastern Orthodox episcopate. With the exception of the Old Calendarists, all of the autocephalous churches are now involved in ecumenical reconciliation on some level, and have been since the 19th century, when the Coptic and Alexandrian churches attempted to reunite, but were blocked by the Muslim Khedive, who feared the power of a reunified Orthodox church in Egypt. As a laic of the church you are obliged to respect the episcopal authorities; there are a number of converts who join, get led astray by websites like orthodoxinfo.com, and then develop a radical objection to the "pan heresy of ecumenism," but among the established faithful, very few are opposed to the process of ecumenical reunion actually being taken, which does not involve doctrinal compromise. For example, on the issue of the filioque, we will not be joining Rome in communion until Rome either removes it or issues a statement defining it in a manner consistent with Orthodox theology (if they say that the Spirit was sent by the Son, that would be accurate).

What is already happening is the reunion of the Eastern and Oriental churches. The two churches of Antioch pray for Metropolitans Gregorios and Paul Yazigi, who were abducted from Aleppo, during their liturgy, and commune each others laity in the Middle East. A similiar arrangement exists between the Greek and Coptic Patriarchates of Alexandria and the Church of Sinai.

St. Justinian did not save the Orthodox Church from syncretism, if by syncretism you mean saving the Eastern Orthodox from Oriental Orthodox influences; he directly infused Oriental Orthodox theology and liturgy into the spiritual life of the Eastern Orthodox, but with the Three Chapters schism, and other problems, his wife St. Helena realized that the Oriental Church needed to continue as a separate entity due to the risks of the Empire reverting to crypto Nestorianism, or falling into other heresies (and indeed that happened; iconoclasm was officially sanctioned by the Empire, but the OO never succumbed to this heresy (which is really a form of Nestorianism).

While the recent EO Pan Orthodox council was not a great success mainly due to poor leadership from Constantinople (His Beatitude the Pope of Alexandria tried to salvage it, but the Ecumenical Patriarchate has serious issues), two decisions it made that were very positive were the use of the word churches to describe those ecclesia the EO are not in communion with, and it also strongly implicitly the Old Calendarist churches, which I believe are becoming increasingly cult-like and corrupt (see the recent sexual abuse scandal involving ex-Elder Panteleimon and HOCNA, which had allegedly broken away from ROCOR in the 1980s due to charges of "ecumenism", but it was really to shut down ROCOR's investigation of Elder Panteleimon and the reports of sexual abuse at Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

It is lamentable that HTM still dominates the market for English language translations of the service books with Byzantine chant notation, for example, their Pentecostarion (which I dont use; mine was published by St. John of Kronstadt Press, which is also Old Calendarist, but the translator at least was a canonical Orthodox who received a blessing from his bishop to publish with them).

The thing is, Oriental and Eastern reunion is plausible because the only real issue is just semantics. There are no larger theological or sacramental concerns. This isn't the case with the RCC.

By "syncretism," I mean pagan syncreticism, such as equating the Logos with the world-spirit that all minds are facets of.

I don't consider Old Calenderists to be valid in any way, they are heretics.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

i meant neither a poetic language nor a baroque style nor any thing of this king, but i talked about the particularity of the biblical language, which is strongly spiritual, here is an example of this:

Revelation 11:8 "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt"

what codes?!, we are not in c.i.a.

Blessings

The meaning of Revelations hasn't been completely disclosed yet, we won't understand most of it until after it's happened.

The parable is very simple, the Kingdom of God is the Church. If you'd stop seeing the Church as something purely of the earth, you'd see that. "Church," in Greek terms, just means "assembly," and in this case it is the assembly of all who confess the fullness of the faith taught by Christ.

 

[toLiJC]

The meaning of Revelations hasn't been completely disclosed yet, we won't understand most of it until after it's happened.

Revelation really means revelation, it is not in vain named so, because God gives direct(er) revelations in it, if something is spiritually called "sodom" when the name of that ancient city is used in many places of the Bible though it has been destroyed since the time of Abraham, then it is certain there is talk of something spiritual (e.g. what the matter at hand is in this case is the fact that sodom was not just a city, but an entire religious tradition, whose worshipers were characterized by inordinate(megalomaniac) manliness considered (to be) a most divine trait), and the Bible is full of such words/names (with such a special meaning)

The parable is very simple, the Kingdom of God is the Church. If you'd stop seeing the Church as something purely of the earth, you'd see that. "Church," in Greek terms, just means "assembly," and in this case it is the assembly of all who confess the fullness of the faith taught by Christ.

what was first, the Kingdom of God or the Church?!, but remember that first God made all the universal creation in six days and only then there was also a Church in this world, here is another passage about that:

John 1:1-4 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Blessings

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Revelation really means revelation, it is not in vain named so, because God gives direct(er) revelations in it, if something is spiritually called "sodom" when the name of that ancient city is used in many places of the Bible though it has been destroyed since the time of Abraham, then it is certain there is talk of something spiritual (e.g. what the matter at hand is in this case is the fact that sodom was not just a city, but an entire religious tradition, whose worshipers were characterized by inordinate(megalomaniac) manliness considered (to be) a most divine trait), and the Bible is full of such words/names (with such a special meaning)



what was first, the Kingdom of God or the Church?!, but remember that first God made all the universal creation in six days and only then there was also a Church in this world, here is another passage about that:

John 1:1-4 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Blessings

All prophecies are revelations, but most were barely understood until they came to pass.

The Church is the Kingdom of God, there is no first vs. second, they are synonymous. God is the King, the Church is his Kingdom.

The Church predates the creation of the earth, since it includes the angels in heaven.

 

[toLiJC]

All prophecies are revelations, but most were barely understood until they came to pass.

The Church is the Kingdom of God, there is no first vs. second, they are synonymous. God is the King, the Church is his Kingdom.

The Church predates the creation of the earth, since it includes the angels in heaven.

this your opinion can be considered true - there is really such a relation as you has described, but there is also an entire set of beliefs in the Scripture, for example in the Bible there is talk of beginning and end, actually a whole doctrine that is an important part of the Word of God and Christ, namely the (so-called) doctrine of eternal judgment, because there is a circle of existence and positions of the souls, which determines our destinies in the course of (the) time's infinity, for example every human was a Holy Angel of God long ago in heaven, as God speaks to the ruler of tyre in Ezekiel 28, but this was before the beginning of this eternity, i.e. in previous eternities, this makes it clear to us that it doesn't pay to be hasty to pay back evil for evil or cause harm/suffering to our neighbor, but it would be better for us to at least sympathize with the overall salvation in the true Lord God, and first of all with His love that He wants us to show toward our neighbor...

Blessings

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

this your opinion can be considered true - there is really such a relation as you has described, but there is also an entire set of beliefs in the Scripture, for example in the Bible there is talk of beginning and end, actually a whole doctrine that is an important part of the Word of God and Christ, namely the (so-called) doctrine of eternal judgment, because there is a circle of existence and positions of the souls, which determines our destinies in the course of (the) time's infinity, for example every human was a Holy Angel of God long ago in heaven, as God speaks to the ruler of tyre in Ezekiel 28, but this was before the beginning of this eternity, i.e. in previous eternities, this makes it clear to us that it doesn't pay to be hasty to pay back evil for evil or cause harm/suffering to our neighbor, but it would be better for us to at least sympathize with the overall salvation in the true Lord God, and first of all with His love that He wants us to show toward our neighbor...

Blessings

No, the Bible makes it very clear the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is incorrect, in Genesis 2:7

 

[toLiJC]

No, the Bible makes it very clear the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is incorrect, in Genesis 2:7

didn't it ever pass through your mind that "the man became a living soul" may mean that from inanimate, some soul became animate - initially the souls are in the place that we can call "nothingness", the "dust of the ground" in the Bible, where each of them is in a state of nonexistence i.e. (something like) a deep sleep without dreams, it is the place of the souls that have not yet been embodied/born as living beings since the beginning of the eternity, i.e. they have been neither human beings, nor angels, nor animals, nor any creature since the beginning of the relevant current eternity (in our case this, the present one)...

Daniel 12:2 "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Blessings

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

didn't it ever pass through your mind that "the man became a living soul" may mean that from inanimate, some soul became animate - initially the souls are in the place that we can call "nothingness", the "dust of the ground" in the Bible, where each of them is in a state of nonexistence i.e. (something like) a deep sleep without dreams, it is the place of the souls that have not yet been embodied/born as living beings since the beginning of the eternity, i.e. they have been neither human beings, nor angels, nor animals, nor any creature since the beginning of the relevant current eternity (in our case this, the present one)...

Daniel 12:2 "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Blessings

You seem to be using nonexistence to mean dormancy. Very big difference. Puff the Magic Dragon is nonexistent, hibernating bears are dormant.

Daniel 12:2 is about the Resurrection of the Dead, not about souls existing prior to bodies.