Scriptural evidence for "pre-mortal existence". Is there any?

[pablope]

We are taught that everything officially changed in A.D. 553. But we are also taught that the change actually was *not *official. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself acknowledges this forthrightly. (See Post 296.)

The question to be asked is whether there were any Church Fathers who taught it (yes) and any Church Fathers who taught against it (yes) and whether it, ultimately, in Catholic teaching is considered, perhaps, an unknown or a mystery (yes, apparently).

).

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=257

“So That We Might Become God”: Understanding Catechism No. 460

Issue: What is meant by the quote from St. Athanasius that is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (no. 460)?

Response: When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them supernatural grace that allowed them to participate in His divine nature. Christ became man in order to restore this grace, which was forfeited when Adam and Eve sinned. We are united to the Son of God in Baptism, whereby we share in his Passion, Death, and Resurrection. We are thus “sons in the Son” and, by grace, “partakers of the divine nature.”

Discussion: While St. Athanasius’s quote might be easily misunderstood, the previous line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), from St. Irenaeus, provides the appropriate context: “The Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God” (no. 460). To be the Son of God and to be a son of God are therefore two very different things: Christ is Son by nature (the “only Son” in John 3:16), while we are sons by grace (“sons in the Son” according to Gaudium et Spes, 22). Further, since man is a creature and there is only one God, man can never be God in the proper sense. Within the context of this paragraph, we see that St. Athanasius’s statement means something other than a man becoming the one God.

When God created Adam and Eve, He desired them to participate in His divine nature—to be able to love Him in an intimate way that exceeded the normal ability of human nature. So in addition to their human nature, God bestowed on Adam and Eve the supernatural gift of grace of original holiness (Catechism, no. 375). He thereby invited Adam and Eve to love Him as He loves Himself—that is, in a divine way. However, when they sinned, Adam and Eve forfeited this ability to love God supernaturally.

Christ became flesh in order to restore our union with God. In Baptism, we are united to Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27)—sharing in His Passion, Death, and Resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)—and so become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Because there is only one divine nature and this nature is God, we are said to “become” God.

Sacred Scripture offers further insight into understanding our unity with God as “sons in the Son.” In the Gospel of John, Jesus prays to the Father that "those who believe in me . . . may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (Jn. 17:20-21). It is precisely in this unity that Christ calls us “brethren” (Jn. 20:17, cf. Catechism, no. 654), for we have indeed been made sons of the Father (cf. 1 Jn. 3:1-2).

 

[KathleenGee]

StephenKent…

I appreciate your comments in recognizing how the monks protected Scripture when Europe was being destroyed.

I went through the teachings of Smith again as well as read Mormon posts in response to its stand against the Catholic Church. They all stated it was directed to the old church, the Catholic Church…and these Mormon posters wondered why the Catholic Church is castigated by Mormonism, while Judaism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism are not…and that Mormonism is threatened by the Catholic Church.

The Mormon religion is never mentioned in parishes or spoken against at the pulpit…never. I am thinking again of your King James Bible program…showing the smoke going up the side of a Catholic Church…with stern Catholic priests witnessing the execution of Jon Huis, I assume…to a charicature of a dolt of a priest giving a homily at Mass, and then peasants getting up from their pews to listen to someone in the back read the Bible…the commentator noting how Catholics would get up and leave the priest to listen to the readings…the irony in this film…and showing Mormonism’s animosity…is that actually what has happened in the Mass…is that the priest has just finished reading the Old and New Testaments to the Catholics, has pronounced the Gospel, and is now explaining to them…who cannot read… what the Scripture is saying to them!!!

The printing press was developed at the same time Luther decided by himself to remove the books of the Bible in the Old Testament that educate us, show us the faith in One God, the universality of mankind, how God is present in our deepest humanity and works through it…to be fulfilled in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

You have to go all the way back to doctrine being corrupt…the first and only doctrine…that was developed from public reflections of many believers…here Origen participated…was the Apostles Creed. There is a reference who stated that SS Peter and Paul composed the Apostles Creed while in Rome. Other sources say that it was saintly teachers and followers who developed the Creed directly from the Apostles.

The sole and original doctrine of ancient Christian times was the Apostles Creed. The Old and New Testament books and letters were read at ancient liturgies, and the teachings of Christ Himself expounded by the bishop or presbyter, and those chosen by the Apostles themselves. The Creed was recited, there was collection of funds by the rich who themselves decided whether to give and how much. After reflecting on the Word of God, then was the consecration of the gifts of bread and wine…the priesthood of Melchizedek fulfilled in Christ, the Perpetual Sacrifice he foretold.

And this early Mass was the practice of believers throughout the entire Christian world by 150 AD…Scripture…with the exception of the Book of Hebrews that was finally approved by 200 AD…the episcopal hierarchy after testing the conciliar model of bishops,…and the Creed…with our foundation of liturgy and sacrament! This is not the work of man, but of God Himself working through man.

Consider how just a small group of people can see an event but get a different perspective and not always having a mutual understanding of it.

The first 300 years…there were no church buildings because of the persecution against Christians who had to hide their faith. They did not have internet and other forms of communication among one another. It took time.

It was the work of the Church founded through the Apostles in the Oral Tradition – not book form – that the Catholic Church was founded…a gathering of people…People in communion through the Holy Trinity…through those chosen in truth and spirit to discern what books would be used, what was our doctrine in the Creed, how the liturgy of worship would be practiced…and the Apostles choosing their successors…the work of many people and many years…vs…

Joseph Smith who had this vision and invalidated the Catholic Church and the doctrine of the Apostles Creed…

You mentioned persons of ancient times, again such as Origen…but you are looking at them through the lens of Mormonism…beliefs set up on one, unchallenged man.
Our other thread on the LDS and ancient artifacts cannot stand up to any proof of experience where as the Catholic faith can …but in the ancient times, we not only depend on documents but also on sites of churches, the catacombs where Christians in Rome worshipped Christ in the tombs of the dead underground…to saints who were martyred and would speak of their faith reflecting the faith then and of today.

We believe in the One True God Who came to us in Man 2000 years ago. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides the Church. Every person in the Church, no matter their position, is on equal ground before God…all revolving around His will and our particular vocations…playing no favorites.

Ours is an enduring faith…if you were to study the history of the Catholic faith, you would see it amazing how it has survived trevail after trevail…from the outside, from within…

We are a gathering of believers based on Jesus Christ, not on any mortal man…or following a man’s teachings…Every teaching must be tested by our instituted hierarchy of whom we have had since the Acts of the Apostles.

The Apostles Creed is not corrupt. It does not mean that we do not have corrupted clerics…but then again…judging by appearances…how many clerics at the time of Luther repented of their sin in Christ? We do not know.

Our belief in Christ developed over time into the science of Christology. Philosophy and logic did not enter into faith until just prior that of St. Thomas Aquinas.

But the universal Catholic Church was initiated by the Holy Spirit. And theology developed.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other issue I am beginning to have with Mormons is when they come to CAF or through Mormon sites use Catholic teachings to prove man becoming god.

Man becoming god blasphemes the truth that there is only One God and One Creator, of which Sacred Scriptures resound to the point of Jesus Christ resisting the temptations of Satan.

An example awhile back was the misuse of CCC460, which Pablope referred. The Mormons were insisting it was showing right there Catholic teachings of us becoming gods through ancient teachers.

I explained to them the contrary as well as pointing to them to read the CCC’s leading up to this passage, that my own priest instructor told us of all our Catholic documents, to write a notation next to 460…that we partake in the life of God’s grace, but we are still separate…we are creatures. I also noted the footnotes…of ancient apologists who most resoundedly rejected Gnosticism and polytheism…as well as St. Thomas Aquinas reference whose subject was the Eucharist…as the source of our participation…

And what it means as a Catholic…bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit…living the life of grace…by being Christ’s servant in our daily lives.

The Mormons then continued holding their ground in spite of the actual context. That is where they crossed the line…obstinate refusal to acknowledge and understand the correct context of our beliefs…and implying instead…the opposite…man becoming god…the forbidden fruit…blaspheming belief in the One True God!

We want to dialogue…but at the same time…when we give the correct understanding of our --Sacred-- beliefs…even if you disagree with it…there is a fine line…in accepting it vs continuing to exclaim it means opposite. It is a matter of willfully taking our beliefs out of context and then pushing them back on us…that offends the sense of the sacred within our souls, and the truth about the nature of God Himself.

The very first commandment of God is that 'I am the Lord, Thy God, Thou shalt not have strange gods against me!"

 

[StephenKent]

". . . I have a policy not to click on any link that’s been shortened through tinyurl because I don’t trust them.QUOTE]

Thank you for that information, Lori. Here’s an expanded link:

calri.com/Bart_D._Ehrman,The_Orthodox_Corruption_of_Scripture(pp._187-194).pdf

Ehrman never mentions the Catholic Church. You’d have to read his entire book (cited favorably by hundreds of scholars since) to understand what he means by “orthodox,” “orthodoxy,” “heresy,” “early christianity,” etc., using the phrases as used by Catholic and other scholars over the decades.

He describes the false adoptionist views that were held and taught by some early Christians and shows how some passages of scripture were corrupted to counter that adoptionist view. Same with the separationist view, the docetic view (one to which I pointed as one of many examples that could be shown), and the patripassianist view.

It is one thing to talk about early interpretations of passages of scripture (e.g., Origen interpreting passages of scripture to support a view that the soul of man exists before formation of the physical, earthly body in the mother’s womb). It is another thing to talk about actually making changes to the early manuscripts (between A.D. 100 and A.D. 200) to support attacks on various views espoused by some early Christians (adoptionist views, separationist views, docetic views, etc.).

All can readily admit that we have no manuscripts that predate A.D. 200. We have a pseudo-facsimile available for the earliest (the Codex B Vaticanus) but it omits and is silent about the inked-in changes that appear on the earlier original. (See csntm.org/manuscript.)

The whole point here about Ehrman’s text is simple: There were changes to the text of the Gospels (Ehrman’s book is somewhat mis-titled and perhaps would be better titled as “The Orthodox Corruption of the Gospels . . .”) and those changes were not made by the Roman Catholic Church or its councils.

Of course, if anyone wants to deny that the scriptures themselves were subjected to substantive changes in the very earliest years (by means of additions and subtractions), he or she would have to fight against Catholic scholars who acknowledge it forthrightly. Mind you, the changes were not in an effort to degrade or confuse the text but to modify it to counter a view held by those with whom the scribe disagreed.

One ought to read the entire book to get a good feel for that early history. It is that of which Nephi speaks (notwithstanding the remarks of modern-day Protestants and a few Latter-day Saint leaders, all of which the LDS Church actually condemns as a misinterpretation and for which the Church itself has no responsibility, being something the Church itself has never said, even though one might walk into some old bookstore that sells otherwise banished or later-revised personal writings).

I appreciate very much the discussion. Read Ehrman and get a feel for that perspective before dismissing it.

 

[KathleenGee]

But Stephen, in context of faith and church…it is pointing to the Catholic church because Protesantism does not have the ecclesial structure of doctrine as Catholicism does…our Vatican library is the greatest in the world…Protestantism is primarily founded on personal issues…protest against perceived excesses of particular individual hierarchy…a tragedy as well.

You come to the Catholic Church to encounter God. All is to reflect on God…and conversion for us is life long…and we have as well Christ’s mercy and forgiveness always available for us for healing and growth. We consider ourselves as sinners, not saints.

Again, Mormonism is founded as being against man, church, doctrine, in essence, man against man…no salvation and redemption necessary, because man is becoming a god. It is a religion for man to be more man.

Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ, the means of Eternal Life beginning now with divine grace…but we always separate from God Himself, because we are creatures.

 

[StephenKent]

For an even more complete view of Ehrman’s analysis, see his article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly:

Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44,” *Catholic Biblical Quarterly *45 (1983): 401-16.

cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12329400

It may be just as likely that the passage was original to Luke or to one of the other gospel writers and was later deliberately omitted (because it invited criticism). Ehrman and Pluckett argue the verses were not original to Luke and were later interpolations, though they do admit that “no one argument yields a definitive solution.” (p. 416.)

What we are left with, however, is concensus that either it was original and then taken out or it was not original and was added. Either way, someone was changing the scripture text, something that happened with other added passages, this one likely original and taken out of many manuscripts and others likely in some cases and surely in other cases added by scribes and copyists (e.g., Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; and 1 John 5:7b-8a).

Who was responsible for making these changes?

 

[Tony888]

Actually, the word sad comes to mind.
It`s about the same as the church where the council of Nicaea was held being turned into a mosque.

I have spoken to the moderator about all the Mormon-related threads, as they are going nowhere, and seem to be merely becoming soapboxes from which LDS members can spread their doctrines.
The world will find out how bankrupt and fraudulent the Mormon church is one day - all we can do is pray for them. The days of St. Athanasius are truly gone.

Have you missed the obvious fact that it’s the anti-LDS crowd here that are starting these ‘soapbox’ threads?
The LDS posters are primarily responding to correct repeat and egregious misstatements of LDS doctrine.

Go ahead and look who starts these threads!

Do you honestly expect us not to defend against sectarian lies

 

[Jerusha]

The days of St. Athanasius are truly gone.

I just picked up two of his books from google. St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies was excellent! On the Incarnation should be great, too.

 

[Jerusha]

Have you missed the obvious fact that it’s the anti-LDS crowd here that are starting these ‘soapbox’ threads?

Tony, I fully recognize that the Catholic contingent was as much responsible for the traffic-jam of LDS-related threads as the LDS contingent was.

 

[StephenKent]

“Who was responsible for making these changes?”

I will tell you what I understand the answer to be to the above question: The Roman Catholic Church does not appear to be responsible for the changes in the text of the Holy Scriptures. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that the Catholic Church made the changes. Catholic scholars are forthright in acknowledging the changes were made in the second century. That’s all. 1 Nephi 13 does not state otherwise. It has been misinterpreted otherwise, but the LDS Church is not at all responsible that individuals impose misreadings.

 

[TexanKnight]

Have you missed the obvious fact that it’s the anti-LDS crowd here that are starting these ‘soapbox’ threads?
The LDS posters are primarily responding to correct repeat and egregious misstatements of LDS doctrine.

Go ahead and look who starts these threads!

Do you honestly expect us not to defend against sectarian lies

If they were lies, I would understand. The problem is, we have stated a single lie. Your problem is, your false prophets and ever-changing doctrines make your church an easy target for logical, intelligent people.

Never forget that we will always be here to welcome you with open arms.

 

[TexanKnight]

If they were lies, I would understand. The problem is, we have stated a single lie. Your problem is, your false prophets and ever-changing doctrines make your church an easy target for logical, intelligent people.

Never forget that we will always be here to welcome you with open arms.

One of my biggest problems is, I am a poor typist and I think faster than I type and sometimes leave words out. What I meant is we have NOT stated a single lie.

 

[Jerusha]

LOL Texan,

I was

 

[SteveVH]

Have you missed the obvious fact that it’s the anti-LDS crowd here that are starting these ‘soapbox’ threads?
The LDS posters are primarily responding to correct repeat and egregious misstatements of LDS doctrine.

Go ahead and look who starts these threads!

Do you honestly expect us not to defend against sectarian lies

Well, I was the one who started this thread. Is not the title of the thread a legitimate question? I would hope that your beliefs would have at least some basis in scripture which is why I asked the question. I cannot control the content of the posts but I do not appreciate the implication that the thread is based upon a “sectarian lie”.

SteveVH

 

[Tony888]

Well, I was the one who started this thread. Is not the title of the thread a legitimate question? I would hope that your beliefs would have at least some basis in scripture which is why I asked the question. I cannot control the content of the posts but I do not appreciate the implication that the thread is based upon a “sectarian lie”.

SteveVH

I replied to **theidler **who claimed LDS were intentionally using this site as our soapbox
I stand by my claim that it is primarily RCC posters who are repeatedly raising the same issues over and over again.

I did not call your specific thread a sectarian lie, though I’ve seen many. One poster today admitted he was intentionally 'Prooftexting" to attack my faith.

 

[TexanKnight]

I replied to **theidler **who claimed LDS were intentionally using this site as our soapbox
I stand by my claim that it is primarily RCC posters who are repeatedly raising the same issues over and over again.

I did not call your specific thread a sectarian lie, though I’ve seen many. One poster today admitted he was intentionally 'Prooftexting" to attack my faith.

You have still not pointed out any lies. Your accusation is vague and without merit.

We post because new people pop up all the time. They need to know the truth about your false prophets.

Again, you are very welcome to join the True Church

 

[Tony888]

You have still not pointed out any lies. Your accusation is vague and without merit.

We post because new people pop up all the time. They need to know the truth about your false prophets.

Again, you are very welcome to join the True Church

you are not making sense TK
I told idler that RCC were starting the threads. You can confirm this by scanning all the active LDS posts

Do you doubt that some of them contain sectarin lies? As stated I had one OP admit today he was intentionally Prooftexting.

 

[Jerusha]

One poster today admitted he was intentionally 'Prooftexting" to attack my faith.

Comparing present doctrine of one church with all doctrines, abandoned repudiated, and current, of another church when that church is constantly changing is underhanded. But not as underhanded as some Mormon apologetics I have seen in here and other places.

I specified the non-current teachings in my discussion. Those specific ones are not that important, given the final picture.

I was not trying to attack your faith. I was trying to get a specific picture of how much Catholic Doctrines differ from LDS Doctrines.

I think you are partially angry because of my subtle reference to temple content, which clearly does make women inferior to men.

BTW, I am female.

Again, thank you for your help.

 

[SteveVH]

I replied to **theidler **who claimed LDS were intentionally using this site as our soapbox
I stand by my claim that it is primarily RCC posters who are repeatedly raising the same issues over and over again.

I did not call your specific thread a sectarian lie, though I’ve seen many. One poster today admitted he was intentionally 'Prooftexting" to attack my faith.

Then I am sorry for the misunderstanding and hope you will accept my apology. The true subject matter of this thread is very important, IMO, in understanding the differences in both theology and anthropology between LDS and Catholic thought and is the cause of talking past each other on a number of issues. My hope was that it would bring us closer in understanding each other, regardless of whether or not we reached agreement on any particlular subject. It appears to have spun out of control.

Steve

 

[TexanKnight]

you are not making sense TK
I told idler that RCC were starting the threads. You can confirm this by scanning all the active LDS posts

Do you doubt that some of them contain sectarin lies? As stated I had one OP admit today he was intentionally Prooftexting.

I am making perfect sense. I asked you to provide evidence of the lies. Instead, you choose to banter words and dodge the question