The spirit world - a history before history

[Peter1000]

Ecc 11:5

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Excellent scripture Anto9us. Thank you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Did you take the time to read 2 Kings 6:14-17. This scripture identifies spirit horses and chariots that are unseen by normal human eyes.

So please explain this scripture to me if their is nothing in the scriptures to justify the idea that our spirits were ever anywhere before we were born.

Thank you.

Uh . . . . what makes you think those "spirit horses and chariots" are us?

But that is a very interesting passage. The prophet prayed for the Lord to open the eyes of the servant and show him their spiritual defenders.

2 Kings 6:17a
17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see."
NASU


How can that possibly be done? After all, the spiritual forces are spirit, not matter, they would be inherently invisible.

THe Lord came through with an answer that was not literally true, but essentially true.

2 Kings 6:17b
And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
NASU

The spiritual forces protecting Elisha were not really horses. They were not really chariots. They were, however, real, and as powerful as horses and chariots . . . even more so.

So the servant understood what he needed to understand.

But there is nothing in this passage to teach that these spiritual forces would later become born as human beings, perhaps your child or mine. You need to understand there is more out there than just human beings.

 

[Anto9us]

John 9:2

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents,
that he was born blind?

The disciples were aware of some prior realm -- I realize Jesus answered neither to this -- but that does not negate the obvious thoughts on the disciples' part that the man could have possibly sinned in another realm or state of existence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

John 9:2

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents,
that he was born blind?

The disciples were aware of some prior realm -- I realize Jesus answered neither to this -- but that does not negate the obvious thoughts on the disciples' part that the man could have possibly sinned in another realm or state of existence.

You're just reaching. The superstitions of the disciples at that time in their education is not a great guide for us; moreover, they were not asserting they knew something, they were trying to find out something; moreover, their words don't preclude a judgement by God at birth, God knowing all things, for a sin committed following birth.

Sorry, you have not established any such thing as you claim.

 

[withwonderingawe]

In Jeremiah 1 he is told
4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Now what does that mean? Well in Zech 3 he sees the ordination of Joshua the High Priest. This is one of those plays on words like in Isa 14 where Lucifer is the King of Babylon yet referring to Satan at the same time. Here we have Joshua of the Old Testament being used as an example of the coming Joshua/Jesus the Branch. The title 'Angel of the Lord' is used meaning Yahweh, I believe it means the Spirit Yahweh for Yahweh had not yet taken on mortality. In the 8th verse Yahweh say 'my servant the Branch', here Yahweh speaks as the agent or mediator of the Father El. If you were living at that time you would have understood his intent.

1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

There is a Jewish story line which says Satan's calling was to 'play the devils advocate" in other words Jesus/Yahweh as Lord of Host calls and sends his messengers, Satan was suppose to witness against them, to voice opposition and say not he, he's not good enough. Then Jesus would judge and send.

2 And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

So Joshua was acceptable.

3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by.

Joshua coming sinful mortality is being set aside and he is being promised robes of righteousness on a condition of 'if'

6 And the angel of the Lord protested/taught unto Joshua, saying,
7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.
8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

So we have this group of men who have been chosen to be prophets like Jeremiah before they come to earth.

In our Book of Abraham he sees the spirits before they are born.

Abr 3
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In Jeremiah 1 he is told
4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God sees all, including things yet future. One can't use this verse to prove a pre-existing spirit of Jeremiah.

In our Book of Abraham he sees the spirits before they are born.

Abr 3
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

That's not one of the 66 canonical books of the Bible. It is merely a story without the gravitas of scripture behind it.

 

[Peter1000]

Uh . . . . what makes you think those "spirit horses and chariots" are us?

But that is a very interesting passage. The prophet prayed for the Lord to open the eyes of the servant and show him their spiritual defenders.

2 Kings 6:17a
17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see."
NASU


How can that possibly be done? After all, the spiritual forces are spirit, not matter, they would be inherently invisible.

THe Lord came through with an answer that was not literally true, but essentially true.

2 Kings 6:17b
And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
NASU

The spiritual forces protecting Elisha were not really horses. They were not really chariots. They were, however, real, and as powerful as horses and chariots . . . even more so.

So the servant understood what he needed to understand.

But there is nothing in this passage to teach that these spiritual forces would later become born as human beings, perhaps your child or mine. You need to understand there is more out there than just human beings.

The bible says that the eyes of the servant were opened and he beheld the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire.

Then you come along and say, well this is just not true, how can this happen?
And then you say, "they were not really chariots, they were, however, real, and as powerful as horses and chariots, even more so.

Who is the 'theys' that you are talking about. 'They' were not really chariots.
'They' were real and as powerful as horses and chariots, even more so. So who were 'They'?

There is nothing that does say these horses and chariots would be eventually horses and chariots on earth. But it is enough that they exist in a world of spirit. That was the point. The world of spirits exists, even that there are horse spirits and chariot spirits, and obviously men and women spirits.

Nothing in this scripture indicates that 'they' were not literally spirit entities, unseen by normal mortal eyes, but seen by eyes that have been given the power to see this world. This was not a metaphorical event. It was real.

 

[Anto9us]

The superstitions of the disciples at that time in their education is not a great guide for us; moreover, they were not asserting they knew something, they were trying to find out something; moreover, their words don't preclude a judgement by God at birth, God knowing all things, for a sin committed following birth.

Wow. Proposing

"a judgement by God at birth, God knowing all things, for a sin committed following birth".

That's out-Calvinizing Calvinism. That's a rock-bottom, mean heartless God for sure.

"I see what you are going to do when you're nineteen, therefore I will have you born blind."

And nobody was saying the spirit horses and chariots would "become us"; it was just illustrating that there is a spirit-world not normally seen, but at times it can be seen by men, and even by a donkee at one point

 

[Peter1000]

You're just reaching. The superstitions of the disciples at that time in their education is not a great guide for us; moreover, they were not asserting they knew something, they were trying to find out something; moreover, their words don't preclude a judgement by God at birth, God knowing all things, for a sin committed following birth.

Sorry, you have not established any such thing as you claim.

You will note that the Savior did not correct them in their thoughts that possibly this man sinned pre-earth.

These men were learning from the God that created the earth, which I would suspect was a little better than superstitions. When do you say that the apostles education was completed?

Are there other parts of the bible that you consider superstitious nonsense? Or is it that anything in the bible that does ot meet with your agenda and approval is considered superstitious babbling.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The bible says that the eyes of the servant were opened and he beheld the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire.

Then you come along and say, well this is just not true, how can this happen?
And then you say, "they were not really chariots, they were, however, real, and as powerful as horses and chariots, even more so.

Who is the 'theys' that you are talking about. 'They' were not really chariots.
'They' were real and as powerful as horses and chariots, even more so. So who were 'They'?

There is nothing that does say these horses and chariots would be eventually horses and chariots on earth. But it is enough that they exist in a world of spirit. That was the point. The world of spirits exists, even that there are horse spirits and chariot spirits, and obviously men and women spirits.

Nothing in this scripture indicates that 'they' were not literally spirit entities, unseen by normal mortal eyes, but seen by eyes that have been given the power to see this world. This was not a metaphorical event. It was real.

We know that the forces protecting Elisha were real. Spirit entities are not horses and chariots, but they are real. We cannot affirm they have four feet and a tail. We can affirm they are powerful and effective.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Psalm 139:15

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

"My substance", that is, "my bones" or "my bodily frame".
"curiously wrought", more accurately, "carefully woven together",
"lowest parts of the earth", by analogy the depths and dust of the earth (even as Adam was crafted from the dust of the earth) with the womb.

The Psalmist uses poetic language to describe his forming in the womb.

Compare with LXX:
"οὐκ ἐκρύβη τὸ ὀστοῦν μου ἀπὸ σοῦ ὃ ἐποίησας ἐν κρυφῇ καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασίς μου ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς"
""Not hidden the bones of me from you which you-made in secret and the support-structure [of] me in the depths [of] the earth"

Compare with the Vulgata:
"non sunt operta ossa mea a te quibus factus sum in abscondito imaginatus sum in novissimis* terrae"
"My bone is not hidden from you, which you made in secret in the lower parts* of the earth"

-CryptoLutheran

*novissimis is an odd word here, it is the dative masculine plural of novissmus, the superlative of novus, "new", witht he meaning of "young" or "new" or "last", thus "in novissmis terrae" "in [the] young worlds"(?) or "latter [parts] of the earth(s)"(?).

 

[ViaCrucis]

You will note that the Savior did not correct them in their thoughts that possibly this man sinned pre-earth.

Did this man or this man's parents sin?
Jesus' response? "οὔτε". No, neither.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

We know that the forces protecting Elisha were real. Spirit entities are not horses and chariots, but they are real. We cannot affirm they have four feet and a tail. We can affirm they are powerful and effective.

Well, you will just have to argue with Elisha about that. He said horses. The last time I looked at images of horses, they had 4 legs and a swishing tail. I suspect he knew what a horse looked like. We may not be able to affirm this, but the bible is a good 2nd source.

You sound real authoritative when you say "spirit entities are not horses and chariots", but the bible does. You may be surprised to find the bible to be right.

What ever 'they' are, you are right, 'they' are powerful and effective.

There is a world out there that is unseen by our mortal eyes, that is very powerful and effective. LDS call it the world of spirits. What do you call it?

 

[Peter1000]

Did this man or this man's parents sin?
Jesus' response? "οὔτε". No, neither.

-CryptoLutheran

The scripture says 'did this man or this man's parents sin, that he was born blind?

The apostles knew there was a pre-earth life, that is why they were willing to consider that this man could have sinned in that pre-earth life before he was born in order to be born blind.

Obviously, his parents could have sinned causing him to be born blind.

But the Savior said, No, neither. But that answer does not stop the apostles from thinking there was a pre-earth life. Jesus just tells them he did not sin in his pre-earth life, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. But Jesus did not deny to his apostles that there was a pre-earth life. Only that this man was not born blind because of his sins in this pre-earth life.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The scripture ways 'did this man or this man's parents sin, that he was born blind?

The apostles knew there was a pre-earth life, that is why they were willing to consider that this man could have sinned in that pre-earth life before he was born in order to be born blind.

Obviously, his parents could have sinned causing him to be born blind.

But the Savior said, No, neither. But that answer does not stop the apostles from thinking there was a pre-earth life. Jesus just tells them he did not sin in his pre-earth life, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. But Jesus did not deny to his apostles that there was a pre-earth life. Only that this man was not born blind because of his sins in this pre-earth life.

Clearly you think you have read the minds of the apostles and you think they must have been correct when they were thinking the thoughts you read there.
I cannot follow you into those strange places.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The scripture ways 'did this man or this man's parents sin, that he was born blind?

The apostles knew there was a pre-earth life, that is why they were willing to consider that this man could have sinned in that pre-earth life before he was born in order to be born blind.

Unless you are a time-traveling telepath, then this is pure guesswork on your part.

Obviously, his parents could have sinned causing him to be born blind.

But the Savior said, No, neither. But that answer does not stop the apostles from thinking there was a pre-earth life. Jesus just tells them he did not sin in his pre-earth life, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. But Jesus did not deny to his apostles that there was a pre-earth life. Only that this man was not born blind because of his sins in this pre-earth life.

There's nothing in the text about a "pre-earth life", not even in the question, "Did this man sin?". That's an act of eisegesis.

St. John Chrysostom (Homily 56 on John) looks to ask why the disciples would ask this, and he finds his answer in John 5, the disciples having come to a misunderstanding, Jesus' healed the paralytic man and instructs him "go and sin no more"; they then, therefore, misunderstand and assume that the blind man's malady must be on account of some sin. Aquinas, likewise, refers back to Chrysostom here (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John, ch. 9, 1296); Aquinas further notes that by saying "neither this man sinned nor his parents" Jesus has excluded such a possibility altogether.

Herein we learn that such things as this are not curses, Jesus has excluded such a way of thinking by denying it, and instead declaring that it is for the glory of God manifest through His Son, and thereby healing the blind man.

Do the disciples imagine there was a time when the man could have sinned before birth? The text does not tell us; and any inference is idle conjecture and speculation. One might as well propose metemphsychosis as pre-existence, both have equal validity as idle speculation on this point. But at the end of the day no conjecture matters, for Christ has denied its possibility by saying "oute" neither.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

Clearly you think you have read the minds of the apostles and you think they must have been correct when they were thinking the thoughts you read there.
I cannot follow you into those strange places.

If you give it just a few seconds of thought, it is not a strange place. The apostles said, 'did this man sin, that he was born blind'.

Think for a second and try to figure out where this man could have sinned in order to be born blind.

We know it could not have been because of original sin, because if that were the case, all men and women would be born blind. So that is out.

Did he sin somehow in his mothers womb? Think about that for a second and a reasonable person would say no. So that is out.

So you tell me, where would this man have sinned in order to be born blind????

I don't have to get into the apostles minds, they put their thoughts on paper for everyone to enjoy. You just reject their words for lack of understanding and not wanting to go to a strange place that you know nothing of, and reject without study or thought, or prayer.

 

[Peter1000]

Unless you are a time-traveling telepath, then this is pure guesswork on your part.


ViaCrucis says:

There's nothing in the text about a "pre-earth life", not even in the question, "Did this man sin?". That's an act of eisegesis.

St. John Chrysostom (Homily 56 on John) looks to ask why the disciples would ask this, and he finds his answer in John 5, the disciples having come to a misunderstanding, Jesus' healed the paralytic man and instructs him "go and sin no more"; they then, therefore, misunderstand and assume that the blind man's malady must be on account of some sin. Aquinas, likewise, refers back to Chrysostom here (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John, ch. 9, 1296); Aquinas further notes that by saying "neither this man sinned nor his parents" Jesus has excluded such a possibility altogether.

Herein we learn that such things as this are not curses, Jesus has excluded such a way of thinking by denying it, and instead declaring that it is for the glory of God manifest through His Son, and thereby healing the blind man.

Do the disciples imagine there was a time when the man could have sinned before birth? The text does not tell us; and any inference is idle conjecture and speculation. One might as well propose metemphsychosis as pre-existence, both have equal validity as idle speculation on this point. But at the end of the day no conjecture matters, for Christ has denied its possibility by saying "oute" neither.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis says:

There's nothing in the text about a "pre-earth life", not even in the question, "Did this man sin?". That's an act of eisegesis.

Again, you did not finish the question. "did this man sin, that he was born blind"?

It is obvious from the question that the apostles had thoughts that this man may have sinned. So the question is NOT whether he sinned, Jesus already told us that he did not sin.

The question is where did the apostles think this man sinned, having been born blind. So we start studying this question. If he had sinned, where would that have taken place.

The first obvious answer for Christians is: he sinned just being born, through the idea of original sin. But this breaks down because every person is under original sin, but every person is not born blind. So that is out.

The second answer is: he sinned somehow in his mothers womb. Any reasonable person thinking hard about that would come up with the right answer, which is no. So that is out.

So what is the answer??? If he were born blind, where could he have sinned?
LDS have a ready answer to this because we believe in a pre-earth life, which fits perfectly into this scenerio. So we have a reasonable answer, which I believe the apostles understood too or they would have never asked how an unborn sinned.

So what is your answer. I know the sinning is a mute point, because Jesus tells us that neither sinned, but it is an interesting situation that the apostles have generated with their question.

 

[Peter1000]

Clearly you think you have read the minds of the apostles and you think they must have been correct when they were thinking the thoughts you read there.
I cannot follow you into those strange places.

I have taken you to a couple of strange places the last couple of days.

But they are only strange because you have never been taught such things. It really is not so strange to think that we existed pre-earth, as spirit children of God the Father. There are many biblical scriptures that testify of this doctrine.
It may be new to you, but not to LDS.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have taken you to a couple of strange places the last couple of days.

But they are only strange because you have never been taught such things. It really is not so strange to think that we existed pre-earth, as spirit children of God the Father. There are many biblical scriptures that testify of this doctrine.
It may be new to you, but not to LDS.

Sorry, that does not constitute a recommendation in my eyes. There are NO "biblical scriptures that testify of this doctrine". Those you have attempted to cite clearly don't teach that doctrine.