Did we have a pre-premortal existence?

[_madeleine]

Frank, ask her how all the sons of God could shout for joy before the earth was even created if they didn't even exist?! Explain to her Hebrews 12:9 which states that God is the Father of our spirits. Good luck!

Angels=sons of God.

[_Franktalk]

Angels=sons of God.

I accept that the sons of God are indeed angels. I also believe that they came down and took wives before the flood.

But of course others feel differently.

"The statement (Genesis 6:1) that the "sons of God" married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for "sons of God", oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Genesis 6,...............It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in 6:4, may mean "fallen ones". The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

However the Septuagint says:

Gen 6:4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

And way before believing Christians walked the earth Nephilim were believed to be the offspring of fallen angels. Thus the reason for the flood.

But some don't like a story about fallen angels so a line of Seth was invented.

[_gdemetz]

You can term them angels, but the scriptures state "sons of God" meaning us, the spirit children of the Father of spirits. Angels didn't just materialize as another false man made doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaches. If they had that power, which they don't, then there would be no need for them to try to posses a body! The scripture simply means that the men (who were sons of God as well as being His literal took descendant through Adam (as many knew then) took beautiful wives and some of their children became giants.

[_Franktalk]

You can term them angels, but the scriptures state "sons of God" meaning us, the spirit children of the Father of spirits. Angels didn't just materialize as another false man made doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaches. If they had that power, which they don't, then there would be no need for them to try to posses a body! The scripture simply means that the men (who were sons of God as well as being His literal took descendant through Adam (as many knew then) took beautiful wives and some of their children became giants.

I agree if you go back far enough there is commonality for all spirit children. But sons of God in the age of creation and after can and does refer to the set of angels separate from those who chose to come in the flesh. Mostly we are called sons of Adam and similar titles. It is no big deal maybe we just disagree.

Here is a good discussion. I don't agree with all that is said but it does supply a good study of the subject.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

[_madeleine]

Angels=sons of God.

I accept that the sons of God are indeed angels. I also believe that they came down and took wives before the flood.

But of course others feel differently.

"The statement (Genesis 6:1) that the "sons of God" married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for "sons of God", oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Genesis 6,...............It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in 6:4, may mean "fallen ones". The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

However the Septuagint says:

Gen 6:4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

And way before believing Christians walked the earth Nephilim were believed to be the offspring of fallen angels. Thus the reason for the flood.

But some don't like a story about fallen angels so a line of Seth was invented.

I can tell the difference between a half-remembered piece of history, garbled as a legend, and a piety tale or myth. :)

You might also find Wisdom 14:6 and Baruch 3:24-28 to be interesting.

6
For of old, when the proud giants were being destroyed,
the hope of the universe, who took refuge on a raft,
left to the world a future for the human family, under the guidance of your hand.


24
O Israel, how vast is the dwelling of God,
how broad the scope of his dominion:
25
Vast and endless,
high and immeasurable!
26
In it were born the giants,
renowned at the first,
huge in stature, skilled in war.
27
These God did not choose,
nor did he give them the way of understanding;
28
They perished for lack of prudence,
perished through their own folly.

At any rate, the usage of the phrase "sons of God" is not the same usage as when the sons of God shout for joy as related in Job. This was not referring to legendary giants but to angels.

[_Franktalk]

At any rate, the usage of the phrase "sons of God" is not the same usage as when the sons of God shout for joy as related in Job. This was not referring to legendary giants but to angels.

The sons of God referred to the angels. Their offspring which are Nephilim are a mixture of Human and angel in flesh form. These are the giants. They were before the flood, some were after the flood, and many will come back during the end times.

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

So something which is not the seed of men will mix "themselves". Sounds like the return of the Nephilim to me. We have none today because the restrainer is holding back the powers of Satan and his fallen ones. But there will come a day in which the restrainer leaves.

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

[_madeleine]

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

So something which is not the seed of men will mix "themselves". Sounds like the return of the Nephilim to me. We have none today because the restrainer is holding back the powers of Satan and his fallen ones. But there will come a day in which the restrainer leaves.

Why make things so complicated? This is the interpretation of a dream, and isn't murky.

From the notes in my NAB: The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (vv. 41–42). Of the kingdoms which emerged from this partitioning, the two that most affected the Jews were the dynasties of the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. They tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Yes Michael is an angel. Other than that, you seem to have changed the subject.

[_Franktalk]

Why make things so complicated? This is the interpretation of a dream, and isn't murky.

From the notes in my NAB: The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (vv. 41–42). Of the kingdoms which emerged from this partitioning, the two that most affected the Jews were the dynasties of the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. They tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire.

Not even close. The first is the Babylonians, the second is the Persian which had already combined with the Medes before the conquest of Babylon. (549 BC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Revolt

Conquest of Babylon. (539 BC)

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon01.html

This twisting is an attempt to keep Rome out of the vision. Rome is the forth beast. It was never conquered completely and exist today in pieces.

At the base of the Statue a rock grows to consume the whole earth. This is the second coming Kingdom. If the rock is assumed to be the first coming then the forth beast must still be Rome because Christ came during the Roman empire. Not the Greek. Give me a break. Just read some history and stop trusting every idiot that comes along.

[_gdemetz]

That's the problem with the great apostasy Frank. Too many people listen to any idiot that comes along, and by the time the restitution of all things takes place, they are so brainwashed in false doctrine taught by false prophets that they can't even see, for example, that gods mean gods!

[_jo1952]

jo1952, We were begotten of our parents first. Baptism is our rebirth in Christ.

Hi Madeleine:

Technically, baptism by water is an outward manifestation showing that we have accepted Christ as our Savior. However, it is not a guaranty that we are reborn spiritually. Even receiving the Holy Ghost is not a guaranty that we are reborn spiritually. It is the beginning of the process of purification and sanctification IF we allow the Holy Ghost to guide and direct us. Baptism is only the start of the journey -- there are no guaranties.

The Epistles show how the Apostles needed to remind members of things they had already been taught, even though they received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Why was this necessary? I would offer it is because they did not yet understand - they were not yet awakened spiritually. See how much Paul taught about spiritual understanding. Why would he spend so much time on the same subject? I would offer it is because they didn't get it; their spirits were not yet awakened; or at the very least, were not fully awake yet. They still were blind and could not see; nor could they hear all that the Holy Spirit had to reveal to them. In fact Paul tells members that they are not yet able to be taught “meat”. Yes, they had been drawn to the Gospel message and hoped that what they had heard was true. They had taken a leap of faith and desired to know God. But you cannot know everything at once; that is why the Holy Ghost “leads” us to all Truth. If we got everything at once (such as at baptism, at which time you believe we are spiritually born again), we wouldn't require being spiritually led to all Truth; we would already have received a complete spiritual awakening.

Also, consider those who fall away after receiving the Holy Spirit. Some believe that such a person never really believed. Some say that such a person never really received the Holy Spirit. But this would be problematic as far as the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit goes. This is why I say that baptism and the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit is NOT a guaranty that a person’s spirit has been born of the Spirit. Otherwise, we would have to throw out the authenticity of the power associated with the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. I am not willing to do that.

It is why Peter felt it was so important to teach members of the church to be diligent in adding to their faith which would allow them to obtain the various qualities they needed in order to have their calling and election made sure. The qualities are obtained both physically and spiritually.

We (the human race) were begotten of the Father at the creation of Adam and Eve. The Fall caused our (the human race) removal from the presence of God. We are regenerated in Jesus Christ, as heirs of the Father.

Where do you believe we are (the human race) while we wait to be born in the flesh if we were begotten of the Father at the creation of Adam and Eve? I believe that the result of the Fall causes physical death of the flesh body; additionally, our spirit suffers spiritual death when we are born in the flesh. Of course, for us to die spiritually when we are born in the flesh indicates to me that we must have been “alive” spiritually before our spirit entered our physical body.

In order to be born AGAIN spiritually, the Holy Spirit begins to awaken our “dead” spirit (thus we are born “of the Spirit”—though not yet completely awakened). When was our spirit born the first time if it needs to be born again? At physical birth? At the moment of our conception in the womb? As Aquinas believed, did our spirit enter our in-vitro body after 90 days of gestation? (This was believed by the RCC until about 150 years ago; at which time they changed their concept and determined that our spirit enters our physical body at the time of conception.) The Bible teaches that the spirit enters the body when blood flows; thus I believe that once blood flows in the fetus, that is the time our spirit enters our body. Unfortunately, whenever it is that spirit entered our body, it is still spiritually dead---i.e., not in the presence of God...nor able to be in the presence of God.

Where did our spirit come from? If it “enters” our physical body…even at the time of conception…then it is not something our parents were able to create. You have already claimed that our parents cannot give us anything they didn’t have. Yet they had a spirit in their body when they conceived you. Thus, they are not able to give us at least one thing they DO have.

Let us look at this from a different perspective. Without quibbling over when exactly the spirit enters our body, the spirit is “spiritually” dead at the time of our physical birth. This is evidenced by Jesus’ own words that our spirits must be born of the Spirit (thus bringing our spirits “spiritual” life) in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Now, even though our spirit is what gives our body life (blood flows through our veins giving our body life, as well as giving evidence that our spirit has entered our body). So, now we can see that even though our spirit gives our body life, we are spiritually dead at birth. Jesus also teaches our spirit must be “born” again. The definition of “born” is: to be brought into life by birth. Yet if our spirit is “born” into “life” at birth; then why does it need to be “born” spiritually? The only answer is that our spirit HAD to have been “born” spiritually dead. And if our spirit needs to “born” AGAIN (but it was spiritually dead at physical birth), it seems that it would be impossible for our spirit to have ALWAYS been dead spiritually – otherwise it would not need to be born “again”…..it would only need to be “born” (i.e., thus it would be born for the first time). I believe this is more evidence that our spirits were alive in the spiritual realm BEFORE our physical birth.

Titus 3

4
But when the kindness and generous love
of God our savior appeared,
5
not because of any righteous deeds we had done
but because of his mercy,
he saved us through the bath of rebirth
and renewal by the holy Spirit

I don't know why you believe I would believe Adam and Eve are excluded.

You have missed my point. If Jesus’ sacrifice includes the sins of ALL mankind, then Adam and Eve’s sin would have been forgiven as well. Thus, there would have been no “guilt” of that sin passed on. There is no mystery here. Babies and young children who have not yet learned what sin IS are not held accountable. Babies are born innocent of ANY sin – they are already clean and have not become affected by conditions inside of the Creation. Those who do not know of the Law, do not live under the Law. They are judged according to their works. How is it that adults who do not know the law are not guilty of breaking the law (the idea that a person cannot use the excuse of ignorance of the law within the world is man’s law---not God’s law)? How possibly can an infant or young child be guilty of the stain of Original Sin when they do not know the law?

God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they would surely die. Since God does not lie, Adam and Eve, who had been immortal up to the time they ate the forbidden fruit, became mortal as a result. Now that they were “changed” from immortal to mortal, they were removed from God’s presence (signifying spiritual death) and their bodies became corruptible (signifying their physical body would decay and die). Jesus taught us:

Matthew 10:28 (KJV)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Man cannot kill your spirit; man can only kill your body. However, another spirit (“him”; i.e., Satan) can destroy both soul and body.

It makes me crazy when people talk about how we have inherited a “sin nature”, or that we carry the “stain” of Original Sin. What did God say about Adam and Eve after they had eaten the forbidden fruit (which was NOT part of the warning that they would surely die)??

Genesis 3:22 (KJV)
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:

This was/is NOT a bad thing. It is NOT a sinful thing; unless you believe that it is sinful to “become as one of us”. I see this as a good thing. After all, the Plan of Salvation is God's plan. I do not think His plan is flawed. To be able to know good and evil is a quality which God has. Man has that quality as well, as it is a quality which Adam and Eve passed along to their progeny.

God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life. But it is not for the reason most people think (because what most people think is what man has taught them). It was not so that they would have lived forever "in a state of sin." It was because they would live forever; and God’s warning could not be turned into a lie. God’s word to them about dying could NOT be broken. God told them they would die. If they ate of the tree of life, then they would not die. So God had to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of Life.

I see the fruit of the tree of Life as the reinstatement of our ability to live in God’s presence. In other words, the purpose of the Plan of Salvation is for us to be able to partake of that fruit so that we can live with God in His Presence; just like Adam and Eve did before their fall. By becoming mortal, Adam and Eve received the fulfillment of God’s warning; death. However, that death was two-fold; physical death, AND spiritual death (i.e., not being allowed to be in God’s presence).

The Plan of Salvation, which includes Christ’s sacrifice, then allows us to use our knowledge of good and evil (which we inherited from Adam and Eve) which allows us to learn not just the consequences of sin (which makes us unclean and therefore unfit to be in God’s presence); but also to learn how to do God’s will. Jesus is the perfect example of doing Father’s will. His Atonement provides a way for us to become clean when we choose evil instead of good (in our learning process). Jesus is also called the bread of Life (spiritual life).

Original Sin is a lack of a grace, that of, the inheritance that Adam and Eve lost for us. We can't inherit what our parents didn't have. Baptism is how we are initiated into the Kingdom of God. Do you live in the presence of God now, as Adam and Eve did before the Fall? There are temporal results that are caused by sin. Ours is, separation from God in this life. Jesus Christ has reconciled us, the temporal effect still remains. You will die. I will die. You are born lacking in something that your parents cannot give you because they don't have it. Our inheritance has not been restored through our first parents. God did not make a science fictional change of the past that caused our future parents (your mom and dad) to possess something they don't have. Only through Jesus Christ are we restored to what was lost by our first parents.

“Restore” means to return to its original form. So, when we learn from Jesus that we must be born again of the Spirit, it seems to me that our Spirit (which is spiritually dead at our physical birth), was alive before we came to the earth. If we need the Holy Spirit to make our spirit spiritually live “again”---“born again”, then we were spiritually alive before we got here. In other words, our spirits existed and were alive spiritually before we came to the earth.

As for infants, perhaps you should read the document, "The Hope for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized".

I followed your advice and read the article. Here is a portion of that article:

* PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.

First of all, I would like to ask why didn’t the Vicar of Christ shed any light on this matter? I would think that in a matter as vital as the salvation of infants and young children that God would reveal to Christ’s representative on the earth the Truth concerning this issue. After all, it is His desire that we all be able to see Him in Heaven. Why, instead, did it go to a commission of men? by the way, I have often wondered why the RCC claims Apostolic succession as their authority; but they do not have any Apostles. What I see is that they are really claiming the authority of one of the Apostles; and they changed the title of Apostle to the title of Pope; i.e., the Vicar of Christ. Thus, it seems what they really should be claiming is Papal succession. But I digress.

God has promised that our knowledge of Him, and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (who leads us to all Truth….but I guess not this particular Truth) that we will have peace of mind and joy in this life because we have hope in the Resurrection of Christ. Yet parents who lose their infants before they can be baptized are left with a lifetime of agonizing over the fate of that child’s soul. Does this sound like something a merciful and loving God would want for those who HAVE turned to Him and accepted Christ as their Savior?? This sounds more like a punishment to me.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the RCC is incorrect about this dogma?? Are you REALLY allowed by the RCC to consider such possibilities? Or, in truth, have they closed the box and placed God inside of it? Claiming to the world that they have “hope” that God will provide for these unfortunate individuals is NOT claiming a “guaranty”. It will bring no real solace to those who have lost a baby or child before it was baptized. The stigma of doubt and despair will always stay with them. Where is the peace of mind and joy in this?

Blessings,

jo