Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?

[prisonchaplain]

Ray challenged me to look for myself to the official http://www.lds.org website for answers to my questions about the premortal existence of humanity as spirits. He claimed there were numerous biblical references to our existence before the creation. So, here’s my verse by look at what the website offered.


The Scriptures

LDS HomeScriptures Study Helps Topical Guide M Man, Antemortal Existence of Prev | Next

TOPICAL GUIDE
MAN, ANTEMORTAL EXISTENCE OF

See also Council in Heaven; Foreordination; Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Spirit Creation

Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.

Most Christians agree that we are body, soul and spirit. Some conflate soul/spirit. Our disagreement is over whether these spirits existed before the creation. The passage does not address this issue.

Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Most Christians agree that we are the sons and daughters of God. We disagree that we are essentially the same as Christ, the one and only begotten, God the Son. We are children by adoption and creation–not in our essence.

Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We believe our souls to be both finite, in that they came into existence at conception, and immortal, because we face an everlasting destiny. Those who are blessed will return to the Father, those who are damned, will go to eternal punishment.

Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.

God is omniscient. He know all things, even before they are. There’s quite a theological discussion that is centuries old as to whether God’s foreknowledge means we are predestined to our everlasting fates.

Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.

I would argue that if the Father formed our spirits, then they were created–they had a beginning.

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

I’m not sure what the reference has to do with premortal spirits. There was a common belief that children bore the punishment for their parents’ sins–Jesus refutes this–in this case saying the man was born this way so that God might be glorified.

Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

Rom. 8: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.

This is a favorite verse of Calvinists, who believe God pre-determined our fates, because of his sovereignty. Such a view would diminish any free agency or will we might have. Regardless, this verse does not mean that the Father had intimate relationship with us before creation, but rather that He knew we were coming and what we would become.

Eph. 1: 4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.

Once again, God’s foreknowledge of our existence does not mean that we had intimate relationship with him prior to creation.

Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.

God created us with spirits–so He surely is the Father of spirits.

Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.

I believe this refers to Satan and a third of the angels who rebelled against God, thus leaving their domain or estate. I’m not sure how this relates to the premortal existence of HUMAN spirits.

Rev. 12: 7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon.

I’m not sure what relevence this passage has. Yes, angels did exist before human creation. That does not mean we do.


Conclusion: If we presuppose the antemortal existence of human spirits, these verses could bolster that belief. However, if without that presupposition, these verses merely point to God’s foreknowledge of human existence, and perhaps even hint at predestination (though I’m not in that particular theological camp).

[Ray]

Conclusion: If we presuppose the antemortal existence of human spirits, these verses could bolster that belief. However, if without that presupposition, these verses merely point to God’s foreknowledge of human existence, and perhaps even hint at predestination (though I’m not in that particular theological camp).
[/b]

Tommy,
Are those the only conclusions or suppositions you can make from all of those scriptures?

Or in other words, could you possibly make any other assumptions than the ones you already made?

Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that other people learn things from the scriptures that you do not "suppose"?

Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that God could help other people to understand and interpret the scriptures in some way you can't even imagine right now, which is at variance with your beliefs?

As I said before, I'm done trying to teach you (and other people) everything I know, because that is not my job, and the only thing I need to tell you (and everyone else) is that you should have learned and be learning and continuing to learn from God... by getting ALL of your assurances from Him... and from there you can go whereever you want, and I hope you'll end up with God.

And btw, I've already told you that you should be learning from God, so I don't need to say anymore.

Bye bye now.

[BenRaines]

Ray who put a burr under your saddle. This is a place for a friendly exchange of ideas and viewpoints. I don't think PC is trying to convert you and hopefully we are not here trying to convert in a posting forum.

Please freely exchange ideas and beliefs but lets stop being rude to one another. Thank you kindly.

Ben

[Ray]

Okay, Ben. Please specify exactly what it was I said that was rude, because I simply don't see it.

Or in other words, please use quotation marks to show me exactly which of my words were rude.

And btw, I'm not asking for your interpretation of my words, but exactly the words that I used.

And if that's not clear enough for you, try to understand this:

I simply was saying that we should all learn from God, without assuming or presuming or presupposing or supposing anything, and I do not see how that was "being rude".

And btw, I'm not "playing dumb" or anything like that either. I simply think it's best to not assume.

p.s. Oh, and one more thing, which I hope is most obvious:

No man can convert any other man to God.

[Traveler]

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

I’m not sure what the reference has to do with premortal spirits. There was a common belief that children bore the punishment for their parents’ sins–Jesus refutes this–in this case saying the man was born this way so that God might be glorified.

[/b]

This response ignores the obvious question posed in this scripture. The question being posed to Jesus was seen by the people as having two possibilities. Both possibilities are seen as having to take place prior to the man’s birth. Possibility 1. Is that the parents sinned and therefore the sin was answered upon the head of the children – There is precedence for this possibility in scripture. I am sure PC did not mean to imply that children never bare the sins of the parents – implying that there is conflict with the teaching of Jesus and scripture – he was not refuting scripture.

The second possibility is that that man sinned as a spirit prior to his birth as a physical being. As we can see from other scriptures presented in this thread there was a reason for the disciples thinking this as a possibility from their scriptures.

One of the most important notions being ignored has to do with the time, place and culture that this question was posed to Jesus. The Mid Eastern Suzerain servant – vassal structure of kingdoms and law was well understood as the governing means of all countries and societies of that time period. The scriptures used this model to inform believers in the G-d of Israel that G-d’s system of law and order for both heaven and earth is to be compared to this order of Kingdoms with which they were familiar. The scriptures do not infer that our current democratic (representative) society is compatible and therefore we are at a great disadvantage in understanding and interpreting scriptures that relate to kingdoms and how punishments were metered. Under Suzerain Law of kingdoms, disloyal subjects were punished by being made blind (as per Sampson). There is more about this concerning disloyal subjects but I do not what to get side tracked. We need to understand that this is why the question is asked here and not at other times with other afflictions.

The concept of a spirit existence prior to birth for man was not uncommon at the time of Jesus among the Jewish people. They interpreted the scriptures to mean that very thing. Not only do we have this scripture to demonstrate this point but we have a vast amount of literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls that also demonstrates this concept was prevalent at the time of Jesus. But there is even more because this concept exists across many ancient societies. The point I am trying to make here is that anciently it was uncommon to not believe in a spirit life before birth.

Most Christians (and other religions) agree that there is life in the womb prior to birth indicating that birth is not the creation even though it is used as an argument here (For example most Christians oppose adoration as a form of killing) . There are also problems with the concept that creation takes place at conception because many Christians believe Adam was created complete in human form – There is less precedence in scripture that man to day is created different than Adam than there is for a spirit existence prior to birth. Yet that is swallowed hook line and sinker with no scripture or ancient culture president but not the ancient concept of spirits of man existing prior to birth and that all mankind are creations of G-d in the same manner Adam was.

Now Jesus did not refute any doctrine in his answer. He simply said that for this case – and this case only the reason was so that G-d could be glorified. He did not teach that children will never bear the burdens of their parents (common in scripture) nor did he teach that spirits of man do not exist before birth – both are ture.

Now to my reason for posting and I believe this to be very important. There are two very different core doctrines being taught by the various concepts presented. One is that mankind are really physical beings trying to have a spiritual experience with G-d. If this is true then the scripture in Genesis that says man (being a physical being) is created in G-d’s image implies that G-d is also a physical being.

The other concept (to which I hold) is that mankind is really spiritually beings trying to understand and make sense of a physical experience – by listening to this spiritual core that defines us we can find G-d and our way in this physical realm. I also believe that spirits are not born of physical parents and therefore when we die – that spirit (which is eternal) lives on and cannot die in the same sense that our physical self dies. The death of the spirit is to be separated from G-d.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

I'm going to add my 2 cents re:

His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

The NET Bible has this note:

sn The disciples assumed that sin (regardless of who committed it) was the cause of the man's blindness. This was a common belief in Judaism; the rabbis used Ezek 18:20 to prove there was no death without sin, and Ps 89:33 to prove there was no punishment without guilt (the Babylonian Talmud, b. Shabbat 55a, although later than the NT, illustrates this). Thus in this case the sin must have been on the part of the man's parents, or during his own prenatal existence. Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

http://www.bible.org/netbible2/index.php?b...up+Verse#note_4

M.

[BenRaines]

"As I said before, I'm done trying to teach you (and other people) everything I know, because that is not my job, and the only thing I need to tell you (and everyone else) is that you should have learned and be learning and continuing to learn from God... by getting ALL of your assurances from Him... and from there you can go whereever you want, and I hope you'll end up with God.

And btw, I've already told you that you should be learning from God, so I don't need to say anymore."

If I misunderstood your intention then I am very sorry. I have read many of your posts and enjoyed them. This one just appeared harsh. Was only my opinion I didn't not intend to offend.

Ben

Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.
[/b]

Sorry PC, but you can't change a teaching with a parenthetical and get away with it. Notice your effortless conversion of the word "offspring" into "creation" in the above quote with a quick "i.e." in parentheses. Offspring means children, not creation. I think you'll find the majority of--if not all--scriptural quotes that say Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God are talking about Jesus's mortal birth, not pre-mortal genealogy. Stated another way, Jesus is the only Son who received his physical body in part from God (23 chromosomes from God, 23 from Mary).

There are simply too many other scriptures calling all of us the children of God and heirs of God and so forth. Simple logic would dictate that if God isn't the Father of our physical bodies, He must be the Father of our spirit bodies. Jesus's being the Only Begotten was magnified in the Gospels to highlight how Jesus was special and the only one who could accomplish the atonement...this wasn't just any rabbi born of Jewish parents...Jesus being the Only Begotten was a huge deal because God Fathered his physical body and because a virgin bore him (a paradox and miracle in itself). The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."

Premortal existence isn't an argument for predestination. Anyone who suggests there's a causal relationship simply lacks critical thinking skills (not saying that includes you PC). Sorry if that sounds rude, but I won't sugarcoat it.

[prisonchaplain]

Are those the only conclusions or suppositions you can make from all of those scriptures? Or in other words, could you possibly make any other assumptions than the ones you already made? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that other people learn things from the scriptures that you do not "suppose"? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that God could help other people to understand and interpret the scriptures in some way you can't even imagine right now, which is at variance with your beliefs?[/b]

Yes, Ray, I do. I sought God's direction as I went through the verses, and just looked at them in their context. Like me, no other Bible scholars outside of the LDS tradition (that I'm aware of) have taken those passages, and put them together to suggest that human spirits are existed eternally in premortality. Is it "at least possible" that Joseph Smith stumbled upon a hidden truth? "All things are possible." However, outside of an assurance about Joseph Smith and his revelations, the LDS interpretation does not seem plausible.

Professor Robinson (BYU) is generally quite frank about admitting than many LDS distinctives cannot be strongly supported, if only relying on biblical texts. His normal recourse, when engaging evangelicals, is to counter that we cannot prove the LDS interpretation is impossible or clearly contradictory to the Holy Bible.

So, as I suggested, if you presuppose Mormon doctrine, the passages could lend understanding to that interpretation. But, without the presupposition, they would not likely lead a nuetral reader conclude that humans have an eternal premortal existence.

[prisonchaplain]

PC SAYS: Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

APOSTLE KNIGHT RESPONDS: Sorry PC, but you can't change a teaching with a parenthetical and get away with it. Notice your effortless conversion of the word "offspring" into "creation" in the above quote with a quick "i.e." in parentheses. Offspring means children, not creation. I think you'll find the majority of--if not all--scriptural quotes that say Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God are talking about Jesus's mortal birth, not pre-mortal genealogy. Stated another way, Jesus is the only Son who received his physical body in part from God (23 chromosomes from God, 23 from Mary).[/b]

Yes, I did add the clarifying term in parenthesis--not as a slight of hand--but, well, as a clarification. I'll break this down as I see it:

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (KJV). This also gets translated "the one and only Son of God." (NIV) Regardless, there is a uniqueness to Jesus' relationship with God--one we do not share.

2. We are sons of God. We were created by Him. Of this there is not doubt (revisit Gen. 1 & 2).

3. So, my clarification is that we, as God's offspring, are the creation of God, the sons of daughters of his creative power, not the begotten children of God--that belongs to Jesus "the only begotten Son of God."

There are simply too many other scriptures calling all of us the children of God and heirs of God and so forth. Simple logic would dictate that if God isn't the Father of our physical bodies, He must be the Father of our spirit bodies.[/b]

He's the Father of our Spirits, and yes He is the Father of our physical bodies--by creation, not biology. God is God and we are man. One species does not give birth to a different species.

The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."[/b]

Really? It's always been understood that way by nearly every tradition with the Christian world.