Did we have a pre-premortal existence?

[_jo1952]

In order to understand 1 Cor 15:46-48 correctly, other scriptures need to be considered in order to make all of scripture True. Otherwise, these other Scriptures will not hold up under the misinterpretation of 1 Cor 46-48 which is held to by many Orthodox Christians.

Paul is teaching about "natural man". Who or what is a natural man? The first Adam - the Adam of Genesis - was immortal before he became mortal as God had promised should Adam eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Even though Adam's body was made of dust, his spirit was breathed into him. We are taught that Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden after his physical body was made and after his spirit had been breathed into him. Before he ate the forbidden fruit, the entire earth, and every living thing in it was immortal.

Genesis 2:15-17 (KJV)

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Inasmuch as the earth, mankind, and every living thing were first immortal before Adam's fall, at which time man, all living things AND the earth became mortal, they existed in an immortal state. When Adam and Eve were forced to leave the Garden of Eden, Cherubim prevented them from re-entering it. The Garden of Eden has been preserved in the Spiritual Realm. We cannot see it now, nor can we see the Cherubim, because they are in the unseen (thus eternal) Spiritual Realm. In becoming mortal, Adam's physical body would now die. Being removed from God's presence, Adam's spirit suffered spiritual death. However, both his physical body and his spirit were alive before he was forced to leave the Garden of Eden. When he left the Garden of Eden, he was "dead" - his body was corruptible. This is how Adam became a "natural man". His spirit (which is unseen) is eternal; however, he was considered spiritually "dead" once he could no longer be with God. Now, his spirit needed to be BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT ("again" because his spirit had previously been alive) in order that he can return to God's presence. The resurrection of his physical body is indicative of immortality being restored to his physical body. It will be a glorified body; a body of incorruption.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (KJV)

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Adam's body as(in the state of) a "natural man" is sown (planted on the earth) in corruption (it will decay and die). Thus it is that while we are on the earth which is also now in a state of corruption (it will decay and die; and will be made new again in the end times). When Paul says "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" and when he says:

1 Corinthians 15:46-47 (KJV)

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Paul is talking about the FALLEN Adam - NOT the Adam who lived before he ate the forbidden fruit. It is the "natural man" Adam (the fallen Adam) who is sown in corruption; i.e., that which is first (on the earth). After the resurrection, both that which WAS natural (which will then be in a state of incorruption) will become spiritual. Paul is careful to point out: There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. The resurrected, or spiritual, body will be joined again with our spirit. Our spirit will then have a tabernacle of a glorified spiritual body; it will no longer have a tabernacle of flesh. In this way, we are able to return to God's presence, as Paul further explains:

1 Corinthians 15:50 (KJV)

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

We need to remember, however, that Adam did not have a body of flesh and blood until after he ate the forbidden fruit.

What other Scriptures support that the Garden of Eden exists in the Spiritual Realm AND that our spirit is eternal?

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 (KJV)

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

and (though there are more)

Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

All of the above are teaching us many things. Of extreme importance is how Orthodoxy teaches an incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor 15. Accordingly, many believers do not understand when Paul also teaches that we are eternal beings. Not only can we not see our spirit (which gives life to our physical body), things that ARE seen were NOT made of things which do appear. In other words, everything we see was made of things which exist in the Spiritual Realm (which we cannot see). While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

In fact, Paul is also teaching us that everything we see in the Creation was made of things unseen. Since he also teaches that things which are not seen are eternal, he is telling us that God "creates" out of eternally existing things. In other words, God reforms them so that we can see them; He does NOT create ex nihilo.

Blessings,

jo

[_Mittens]

The word of God says quite the opposite of course. But ...that's usually the case.

Genesis 1:3. God told light to BE.

That's ex-nihilo creation spelled out as plainly and as obviously as can be stated in the English language. The fact that you cannot explain this does not mean that the Word of God does not state it. Just because YOU cannot create something out of nothing does not mean that God cannot. You have a low view of God. Beyond your puny misconceptions, God obviously CAN create something (everything) from nothing ...at least according to His own Holy Word.

The reality is, Mormons have little faith in God or his Word, but cling to the mind of the flesh - assuming that if they cannot understand it, it must be false. After all, you Mormon guys are "gods" too, right?

[_jo1952]

Paul's teachings - straight from the Bible - in clear and plain English:

Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In other words, things which are seen were made of things not seen.

The Greek definition of the word "framed" is:

G2675
καταρτίζω
katartizō
kat-ar-tid'-zo
From G2596 and a derivative of G739; to complete thoroughly, that is, repair (literally or figuratively) or adjust: - fit, frame, mend, (make) perfect (-ly join together), prepare, restore.

by the way, G739 is: fresh; complete; perfect.

In other words, the word of God adjusted, repaired, made fresh, completed, perfected, things which are not seen. This is how He "created" the things we do see.

2 Corinthians 4:18 (KJV)

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

In other words, things which are not seen are eternal.

Therefore, things which are seen were made of things which have existed eternally; i.e., things which have co-existed with God.

Some things which are not seen which are thus eternal: God, the Spiritual Realm, our spirits.

Some things which are seen which are thus temporal: The Creation, our physical bodies.

Your interpretation of God makes Him a Despot, a Tyrant, a Creator who knowingly created man imperfectly, who will then cause those imperfect men to (in your understanding of Hell) burn in Hell throughout eternity BECAUSE they are imperfect. Your interpretation does not paint the picture of a "just" or "non-respecter of persons" God.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Mittens, your head is like a mules! Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and he knew and taught that they were three distinct different persons in the Godhead! Can't you get it through your head that when you see one God written in scripture or Mormon doctrine that it is merely referring to the GODHEAD!!!!!!! And, the GODHEAD which we worship consists of THREE GODS!!! STOP TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE!!!!!!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!

[_Drifting]

Mittens, your head is like a mules! Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and he knew and taught that they were three distinct different persons in the Godhead! Can't you get it through your head that when you see one God written in scripture or Mormon doctrine that it is merely referring to the GODHEAD!!!!!!! And, the GODHEAD which we worship consists of THREE GODS!!! STOP TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE!!!!!!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!

When Joseph personally wrote an account in his journal of what he claimed to see who did he say he saw?

[_jo1952]

Mittens, your head is like a mules! Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and he knew and taught that they were three distinct different persons in the Godhead! Can't you get it through your head that when you see one God written in scripture or Mormon doctrine that it is merely referring to the GODHEAD!!!!!!! And, the GODHEAD which we worship consists of THREE GODS!!! STOP TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE!!!!!!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!

GD,

At this time she doesn't understand what her own beliefs look like. She is certainly not going to be able to understand what our beliefs look like.

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

gdemetz, which version of the first vision are you referencing? Even that changed several times before the Mormon Church settled on the one they use today. I think it is clear that Joseph Smith did not himself write the Book of Mormon (I think we agree on that even though I disagree on any divine origin) and since he didn't, he didn't bother to correct the orthodox trinitarian views it conveys. There is a major time difference between his supposed first vision, which differs from the currently used version, and thus to me accounts for any discrepancies as Smith struggled to get his story straight.

[_jo1952]

gdemetz, which version of the first vision are you referencing? Even that changed several times before the Mormon Church settled on the one they use today. I think it is clear that Joseph Smith did not himself write the Book of Mormon (I think we agree on that even though I disagree on any divine origin) and since he didn't, he didn't bother to correct the orthodox trinitarian views it conveys. There is a major time difference between his supposed first vision, which differs from the currently used version, and thus to me accounts for any discrepancies as Smith struggled to get his story straight.

Which version of the Trinity Dogma are you referring to? The one described by Tertullian; the one described by the first Council of Nicea; the one currently described by the RCC as incomprehensible; or the one still argued over by Scholars of Orthodox Theology even today?

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

Unlike Mormons who use Smith's final and fully edited version of his vision as an integral part of their education, marketing and literature today, the views of those you mentioned are not exactly on the shelves of the average Christian and neither is the topic much debated in normal Christian circles. The accepted view of the trinity for the vast majority of Christians is as I stated above and has been the accepted view for a very long time. The Book of Mormon's apparent confirmation of orthodox trinitarian views has been brought up in this thread and it has been suggested that Smith's first vision is somehow a correction of that perceived viewpoint. In that context it is a valid question. Scholars will argue over all kinds of things, not always helpfully. Within my Christian experience there is no debate. I have no response to the RCC position...for that you will have to ask a RC.

[_jo1952]

Unlike Mormons who use Smith's final and fully edited version of his vision as an integral part of their education, marketing and literature today, the views of those you mentioned are not exactly on the shelves of the average Christian and neither is the topic much debated in normal Christian circles. The accepted view of the trinity for the vast majority of Christians is as I stated above and has been the accepted view for a very long time. The Book of Mormon's apparent confirmation of orthodox trinitarian views has been brought up in this thread and it has been suggested that Smith's first vision is somehow a correction of that perceived viewpoint. In that context it is a valid question. Scholars will argue over all kinds of things, not always helpfully. Within my Christian experience there is no debate. I have no response to the RCC position...for that you will have to ask a RC.

Yet, what you claim has been the accepted view for a very long time, is NOT the same view as Tertullian. It is NOT the same view as the Council of Nicea. It is NOT the same view as subsequent evolutions of the Dogma. So, even though your claim is that the one you use is the view "accepted for a very long time", it is one that went through many changes to get to the point where it has been "accepted for a very long time". As such, your very own view of the Trinity Dogma is more guilty of the standard you are using against Joseph Smith. Your argument fails as a valid argument.

by the way, your world view includes the view that what you see being taught in the Bible is what has come to be identified by man as the Trinity Dogma. Therefore, when you see what you think is evidence which supports that same world view (for instance, when you read the Book of Mormon), then THAT is what you will see. There are unnumbered people who do NOT hold to the same view as you. They do NOT believe in the Trinity Dogma you believe in. As such, when they read the Bible, they will not see the Trinity Dogma being taught in the Bible. If, perchance, they read the Book of Mormon, they will NOT see the Trinity Dogma being taught there either. When you do not take this reality into consideration, your argument suffers another argument fallacy.

You are not alone, though. Mittens' arguments concerning the Trinity Dogma also suffer from the same fallacies, as do those same arguments which are used by other posters.

It does not appear to me that you are aware that the Trinity Dogma was founded by the RCC.

Blessings,

jo