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

[StephenKent]

“I think I posted something about Jesus being the embodiment of Wisdom . . . .”

You’re in good company, of course, for the Apostle Paul seems to have believed Jesus Christ was the wisdom of God. See 1 Cor. 2.

 

[KathleenGee]

The source for Gary’s post is www.newadvent.org/cathen/11206b.htm

Origen looked at text grammatically…and I would think the same of Mormonism seeing a pre existing mortal in the book of Wisdom…as stated in the link, Origen did not understand the literal sense of the body of thought as we would today, but looked at the outer letter form…and it was his error, human as it was considering the vast, orthodox leaning treatises he had given in his life time. There was this issue as well brought out in comprehending the outward letter of the Law, but not understanding its depth of intent.

Theology in Origen’s time was very much in early development…but Origen died in the blessings of the Church.

He always began his treatises and theories by ‘De Principiis’ – submitting to the ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching and ecclesiastical rule of faith that already existed in his time to insure the truth of Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Origen also rejected all gnostic writings alleged as gospels, only holding on to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Origen upheld the Church and rule of faith vs Sola Scriptura and other interpretations based on solitary man. Church vs man.

So if your religion is based on man, you will look for any motif or grammar or outward form to justify such beliefs. But the problem doing so with Sacred Scripture is that it is about inviting us into the life of God, about sin and its atonement through Christ, and acknowledging He did not leave us orphans but gave us His church to be our boat…

Think of the times Jesus was on a boat and preached from a boat on water…and how a boat is referred to as ‘she’ who protects us from drowning…because we are not meant to breathe but only through the Spirit of Life which is God.

And to add to this, Christ is the fulfillment of Wisdom in carnate form and through Him the Church is His Bride, female…she guides us to salvation and protects us from error…and always the Church’s stand is conservative, to test all spirits.

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . the Wisdom of Solomon . . . is scripture to us . . . ."

“. . . . It’s too bad King James decided to throw Wisdom out with the bath water, eh? . . . .”

" . . . . Mormons follow the Protestants in opposing Catholicism in the Sacred Scripture omitting the Books of Wisdom, Sirach and others that would give one a greater insight into the nature of God, nature law, and the nature of creation . . ."

" . . . After the Protestant Reformation took hold, the Church reconvened in reflecting on the removal of books by Luther and others. But after deliberation, the conclusion was that the Apocrypha was indeed inspired by God and returned as canon. So the Church listened to the Reformers, removed the books for more discernment, but then again came to the conclusion with the Holy Spirit that these books were indeed inspired . . . ."

The above statements remind me of the following point. Bruce M. Metzger, in his editorial “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” in The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, explains how the Wisdom of Solomon and others of the “Apocryphal” books came to be included by Rome in its Old Testament canon:

“At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader’s attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. [In the preface to his Latin Version of the Bible Jerome, after translating the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, says: “Anything outside of these must be placed within the Apocrypha,” that is, within the non-canonical books.] Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome’s prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures. The Council of Trent decreed [in its “Sacrosancta”] that the canon of the Old Testament includes them (except the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras). Subsequent editions of the Latin Vulgate text, officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorporated within the sequence of the Old Testament books. Thus Tobit and Judith stand after Nehemiah; the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus stand after the Song of Solomon; Baruch (with the Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6) stands after Lamentations; and 1 and 2 Maccabees conclude the books of the Old Testament. An appendix after the New Testament contains the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, without implying canonical status.… Thus Roman Catholics accept as fully canonical those books and parts of books which Protestants call the Apocrypha (except the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, which both groups regard as apocryphal).”

Bruce M. Metzger, “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” in *The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha *(New York: Oxford University, 1965), x-xi.

Along with some but not all others of the “Aprocryphal” books, the Wisdom of Solomon was written predominantly in Greek. (Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, part of Baruch, and 1 Maccabees are the exception, having been written in Hebrew or, in part at least, in Arabic). The Wisdom of Solomon, written during the last two centuries before Christ and the first century of the Christian era, first appeared long after the Hebrew Old Testament canon was completed.

Interestingly, these books themselves, from first to last, bear testimony to the assertion of the Jewish historian Josephus (Against Apion, 1.8) that “the exact succession of the prophets” had been broken after the close of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Nowhere in them is found the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord,” which occurs so frequently in the Old Testament.

Accordingly, the Palestinian Jews never accepted these Apocryphal books as canonical, their canon being essentially the same as what the Protestant Old testament is today (see Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41; Babylonian Talmud, Yomah 9b, Sota 48b, Sanhedrin 11a). Nor did Jesus or the New Testament writers ever cite from these books. When Paul declared then that the Jews possessed “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), he was implicitly excluding the Apocrypha from those “oracles.”

Modern Roman Catholic scholars commonly employ a distinction introduced by Sixtus of Sienna in 1566 to designate the two groups of books. The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches. Thus, Roman Catholics accept as fully canonical those books and parts of books that Protestants call the Apocrypha (except the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, which both groups regard as apocryphal). In short, as a popular Roman Catholic Catechism puts it, "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocryphal, but simply ‘later added to the canon.’ "

In short, according to Josephus, there had been a break in the succession of the prophets after Old Testament times. According to history itself, the Wisdom of Solomon appeared after the Hebrew canon was completed. It was not “thrown out” of the canon; it was later included in the canon (or, to use the words of the Catechism, it was “added to the canon”). People should tread lightly when they condemn the Latter-day Saints for “adding the Book of Mormon” to the realm of canonized scripture. That same sort of thing, it would seem, happened once before in an earlier Christian era. The argument that the “canon is closed” is not available to some Christian traditions.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for your reply, Stephen and it is news to me that the Mormons are now reading the other books…they publicy emphasize the KJV…and I acknowledge there are versions that include the other books…

I am having to work all day today…but I think again, my issue is the foundational beliefs and practices of Mormonism is very different and contrary to how the universal Christian Church has developed. As said earlier, all early church fathers, teachers had incorrect ideas…but they presented them…

Also it looks like Mormonism adopts from Catholicism various terms…canon?..I mean I read all these older beliefs and ideas…the language is so radically different than that used today.

I dont want to oppose either genuine movements within Mormonism for greater truth and unity with the rest of the believers in God…so I am always wondering if this sameness is authentic or a ruse…

Have to go…God bless!

 

[Jerusha]

IMHO, the more they get into the Deuterocanon, the more they will realize how bogus the Book of Mormon is. (D&C 91)

!. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha, there are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2. There are many things translated therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5. And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit, shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6. And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited, therefore it is not needful that is should be translated.

JS said, go ahead and read it. Caught by the words of their own prophet.

 

[Telstar]

Just for clarification concerning the Deutero-Canonical books being included in the original Latin Vulgate that was translated by St. Jerome, and later translated into the Douay-Rheims English Version:About This Online Bible

By The Publisher The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version
With revisions and footnotes (in the text in italics) by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52,
Taken from a hardcopy of the 1899 Edition by the John Murphy Company
IMPRIMATUR: James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.

The Latin Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) Clementine Version
Translation from Greek and other languages into Latin by Saint Jerome, about 382 A.D.

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text (in red italics) were written by Dr. Challoner.

The DR Bible was photographically reproduced from the 1899 edition of the John Murphy Company, Baltimore, Maryland, by Tan Books in 1971. Eventually, this edition was optically scanned to produce a large text file which this publisher used for creating this website, with the aid of text-processing software, which automatically creates the HTML web pages and the index for the search engine. The search engine is a separate piece of software.

One important goal of this project was to preserve the original text “as is”, without making any changes in the wording, because the original text had the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dated Sept 1st 1899.

The text files were checked quite thoroughly by software written by the publisher for punctuation errors and verses out of order. The index was humanly checked for misspelled words and the corrections were made to the text. However, some spelling errors may still be present in the text. Many verses were out of order in the original file. These have been corrected.

Every effort was made to ensure that this online version is an exact match to the original printed version. No words were added or omitted from the text, except for correcting errors caused by the scanning process. No words were rearranged. No verse numbers were changed, except in the case of Psalm 9.

Psalm 9 originally contained 21 verses and there were 2 versions of Psalm 10, numbering 1-18 and 1-8. This obviously caused a conflict, so it was decided to put the first Psalm 10 in the last part of Psalm 9 and renumber the verses 22-39. Thus, I retained the same numbering for all the Psalms as all the Douay Rheims Bibles. Note, in the Protestant Bibles the numbering of Psalms 10 through 146 differs by one. So if you are looking for Psalm 23, it is actually Psalm 22 in the Douay-Rheims Bible.

 

[StephenKent]

" . . .Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.. . . .

That is perfectly understandable and acceptable. My post has nothing to do with the question of whether the deuterocanonical books are or are not “correct” or “inspired” (and on the same token with the question of whether the Book of Mormon is or is not “correct” or “inspired”). The point is simply this one: if in earlier centuries the Roman Catholic Church can feel comfortable about adding to the canon after it is “closed” or “complete,” then it is not in a very strong position to argue on that ground alone that the Latter-day Saints have committed an unacceptable act in adding to the canon in our day. That’s the only point being made.

On the main topic: Read up about how one Roman Catholic artist portrayed the nature of the pre-mortal soul (see image number 2 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Janmot#Poem_of_the_Soul). Read more here: theartofpainting.be/AOS-Soul.htm

 

[Jerusha]

The point I made in my previous post is that Joseph Smith and friends paraphrased from the Deuterocanon (particularly Judith and Maccabees) in assembling their reality from pre-existing materials.

 

[Telstar]

That is perfectly understandable and acceptable. My post has nothing to do with the question of whether the deuterocanonical books are or are not “correct” or “inspired” (and on the same token with the question of whether the Book of Mormon is or is not “correct” or “inspired”). The point is simply this one: if in earlier centuries the Roman Catholic Church can feel comfortable about adding to the canon after it is “closed” or “complete,” then it is not in a very strong position to argue on that ground alone that the Latter-day Saints have committed an unacceptable act in adding to the canon in our day. That’s the only point being made.

On the main topic: Read up about how one Roman Catholic artist portrayed the nature of the pre-mortal soul (see image number 2 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Janmot#Poem_of_the_Soul). Read more here: theartofpainting.be/AOS-Soul.htm

That’s exactly my point. They were not added to the canon of the Bible at some later point in time as you assert. They were always a part of the Bible from the time it was first assembled and translated into Latin (aka: the Latin Vulgate*) by St. Jerome, under Pope Damasus, in 382 AD. Even though St. Jerome disagreed with the Pope on their being inspired, the Pope ordered them to be included because he believed they were. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered, he was proved to be correct in his belief because they were part of the scrolls found from the early texts of the Alexandrian Jews. IIRC, Josephus was a Palestinian Jew, and they did not use those texts. The Palestinian Jews were among the ones that rejected Jesus as the Messiah (which * included the Pharisees and Sadducees). If memory serves, they are the original source of most modern day branches of Judaism.

*(Note: The Latin Vulgate was the Official Bible of the RCC that was later translated, in it’s entirety, into the Douay-Rheims English Version.)

As far as the painting goes, I don’t see how an artist’s interpretation is relevant to any of the scriptural references posted. There wasn’t much of anything in the article that shed much light on what the painting meant to the painter. I had to search elsewhere to view the painting, but I don’t really understand your point in posting it, nor do I see anything in it that’s related to the preexistence of a soul. Just because an artist is Catholic, that doesn’t mean their works are always representative of Catholic teaching, either. *

 

[TexanKnight]

That’s exactly my point. They were not added to the canon of the Bible at some later point in time as you assert. They were always a part of the Bible from the time it was first assembled and translated into Latin (aka: the Latin Vulgate*) by St. Jerome, under Pope Damasus, in 382 AD. Even though St. Jerome disagreed with the Pope on their being inspired, the Pope ordered them to be included because he believed they were. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered, he was proved to be correct in his belief because they were part of the scrolls found from the early texts of the Alexandrian Jews. IIRC, Josephus was a Palestinian Jew, and they did not use those texts. The Palestinian Jews were among the ones that rejected Jesus as the Messiah (which * included the Pharisees and Sadducees). If memory serves, they are the original source of most modern day branches of Judaism.

*(Note: The Latin Vulgate was the Official Bible of the RCC that was later translated, in it’s entirety, into the Douay-Rheims English Version.)

As far as the painting goes, I don’t see how an artist’s interpretation is relevant to any of the scriptural references posted. There wasn’t much of anything in the article that shed much light on what the painting meant to the painter. I had to search elsewhere to view the painting, but I don’t really understand your point in posting it, nor do I see anything in it that’s related to the preexistence of a soul. Just because an artist is Catholic, that doesn’t mean their works are always representative of Catholic teaching, either. *

Good post

 

[Nicea325]

That is perfectly understandable and acceptable. My post has nothing to do with the question of whether the deuterocanonical books are or are not “correct” or “inspired” (and on the same token with the question of whether the Book of Mormon is or is not “correct” or “inspired”). The point is simply this one: if in earlier centuries the Roman Catholic Church can feel comfortable about adding to the canon after it is “closed” or “complete,” then it is not in a very strong position to argue on that ground alone that the Latter-day Saints have committed an unacceptable act in adding to the canon in our day. That’s the only point being made.

On the main topic: Read up about how one Roman Catholic artist portrayed the nature of the pre-mortal soul (see image number 2 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Janmot#Poem_of_the_Soul). Read more here: theartofpainting.be/AOS-Soul.htm

Wrong! Your history of the canon is in grave error. The RCC added nothing to canon as told by many Protestants,fundamentalist,etc,etc. It is nothing but a distortion of truth and has been accepted as a fact of history,which is totally not true. It is time to read the history of the canon outside biased sources.

 

[SteveVH]

We were invited earlier to address a new and second question (see above quotation). This is my initial posting in an effort to respond to that invitation.

What do the Latter-day Saints believe to be the “ultimate source” of the human being? Let me state at the start: (1) I do not speak for the LDS Church; and (2) I believe the LDS Church teaches that the ultimate, beginning essence of humans is some sort of “intelligence,” whatever that is. The “source” of men’s spirits is, of course, God. The world around us was created by God.

Thanks, Stephen, I appreciate your response to my question. Your statement above: (“The “source” of men’s spirits is, of course, God. The world around us was created by God.”), as I’m sure you are aware, is contrary to what I believe is LDS teaching and is the reason I brought it up in the first place. To be clear, what I have read and what I have been told countless times by other Mormon posters is that “intelligences” and even inert “matter” are co-eternal with God, which means that they were not created by God. That is where I have the major problem, though not the only problem, with this line of thought. Apparently, you believe differently, that is, that God is the source and creator of these “inteligences” and “matter”. If I understand you correctly then I would accept your line of thought as far as this particular matter is concerned but would still have a huge problem with the common Mormon understanding that God is not the source; not the Creator of everything that exists. One question I would have though, just to be clear, is whether or not you believe that God is the Source and Creator of the “intelligence” or was He dependent upon a co-eternal “intelligence” in order to create the soul? In other words, are you using “soul” and “intelligence” interchangeably or do they differ?

As far as your quotes form Origen are concerned, I believe GaryTaylor has already quoted those parts of the Catholic Enyclopedia that I was going to point out and there is no point in re-hashing that.

Thanks again for your comments.

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . Augustine, however (Gen. ad lit. vii, 24), says that the soul of the *first man *was created at the same time as the angels, before the body, for another reason; because he supposes that the body of man, during the work of the six days, was produced, not actually, but only as to some ‘causal virtues’; which cannot be said of the soul, because neither was it made of any pre-existing corporeal or spiritual matter, nor could it be produced from any created virtue. Therefore it seems that the soul itself, during the work of the six days, when all things were made, was created, together with the angels; and that afterwards, by its own will, was joined to the service of the body. But he does not say this by way of assertion; as his words prove. For he says (Gen. ad lit. vii, 29): ‘We may believe, if neither Scripture nor reason forbid, that man was made on the sixth day, in the sense that his body was created as to its causal virtue in the elements of the world, but that the soul was already created.’ . . . ."

I have added the emphasis (italic font) to the words “first man” in the second of the two above quotations to help make the following point: I think we can see that St. Augustine actually did not come to any firm conclusion that our souls did not pre-date the times they were breathed into our bodies:

In Book 10 of his De Genesi ad Litteram, St. Augustine of Hippo considers the creation of Eve’s soul and hence those of other humans. He names three possibilities: (1) all are created individually in the primal creation; (2) the traducian theory; and (3) creationism. The choice between (1) and (2) occupies Augustine’s efforts the most. In the end he finds no scriptural support for either alternative and his discussion remains inconclusive, dismissing only Tertullian’s corporealist traducianism. In the course of his writing, however, note what Augustine states:

A closer examination is needed of the passage in the book of Wisdom that says, “A good soul fell to my lot, and, because I was unusually good, I entered an undefiled body.” This would in fact seem to support the opinion according to which it is believed that souls are not propagated from a single soul but enter bodies from on high. What, however, is the meaning of the phrase “a good soul fell to my lot”? One could imagine that in the creation of souls, if there is such a thing, some are good and others not, and these are distributed on the basis of a kind of lottery, which would decide which type of soul would be infused in each individual person. Or, at the moment of conception or birth God makes some people good and others not, in such a way that each of them would receive the soul that had been assigned to them by the draw. It would be odd if the cited text were a convincing argument, at least for those who believe that souls are created in another place and sent by God, one by one, into each human body. Not so, however, for those who assert that souls are sent into bodies based on the merits from works done prior to being united to the body. Indeed, based on what criteria could it be thought that souls, some good and others not, enter bodies, except according to their actions? This is inconsistent, however, with a nature in which all souls are created by him who creates all natures good. Far be it from us, however, to contradict the apostle, who, when speaking of the twins who were still in Rachel’s womb, says that, being as yet unborn, they had not done anything either good or evil. He thus concludes that, not based on works but by the grace of him who calls, Scripture says, “The older will serve the younger.” Let us therefore set aside for awhile the text being considered here from the book of Wisdom, because we must not ignore the opinion, correct or not, of those who believe that it especially and exclusively concerns the soul “of the mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.” If necessary, we will examine the meaning of this text later in such a way that, if it cannot be applied to Christ, we will try to discover in what sense it must be understood so as to not contradict the doctrine of the apostle, starting from the hypothesis that souls have merits deriving from their actions prior to living in their bodies.

On Genesis 10.7.12. (Translation here taken from Sever J. Voicu, Thomas C. Oden, *Apocrypha: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture *(InterVarsity Press, 2010), p. 112.) Note: In the above passage, the phrase “the older will serve the younger” is from Romans 9:10-12 and the phrase “of the mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus” is from 1 Timothy 2:5.

In short, our basic question is (and was) far from settled when we limit ourselves to the Bible (Catholic version, Protestant version, LDS version) and when we limit ourselves to some of the Early Church Fathers (Origen being pretty set in his views and his teachings only appearing to have been anathematized, about which even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges there is doubt).

 

[SteveVH]

I see nothing there that implies the non-existence of a pre-mortal soul. I fail to see how the fact that God ‘breathed’ a soul into man translates into the non-existence of a pre-mortal soul.

We are limited by human language and human intelligence in trying to describe a divine event concerning the creation of the human being. As a Catholic I must place all of this within the context that nothing, including “intelligences” or “matter”, existed prior to or was co-eternal with God; that God is the source of all things, visible and invisible and apart from God nothing existed. When speaking of God “breathing” a soul into man, it is difficult for us to think outside of time, but I believe that the creation of man’s body and man’s soul were a simultaneous event; one did not happen before or after the other.

I agree in the following sense: Man was not a soul until God created him as such. What you essentially are stating, using the phraseology you employ, is that the “man” did not “possess” a “soul” until it was “given” to him by God.

Then I have not communicated clearly. There is no man without a soul and as I said above, the creation of the soul and the body are a simultaneous event.

The mortal parents are given by the Creator the power to create the body and God creates the soul.

I would disagree strongly with this statement. Man cooperates with God (pro-creates) in giving life to new human beings, but man certainly does not “create” the body and certainly not the soul. I think I mentioned somewhere in a past post that when I look at my children, I certainly did not design how long my daughter’s eyelashes would be or place the dimple in her cheek when she smiles. This seems to be a self evident truth. What parent is not utterly amazed at the child that comes forth and which of us could ever claim that we had anything to do with designing the unique charactaristics of that person, both in body and in soul? In Catholic thought, when a man and woman become one flesh which is realized in that new life, this is the greatest manifestation of being created in the image and likeness of God because it reflects the Trinity, the essence of God, Who is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The very name; Father, Son and Holy Spirit reflect a familial relationship. But I digress.

I am asking for some analysis that looks at Solomon’s statements and that spells forth exactly how it is that statements describing that God breathed into man his soul constitute statements that the timing of the creation of the soul coincides with the placement of that soul in the body.

Stephen, as I have already either implied or directly stated, I do not believe we can apply a strict literal sense to the words found in the Book of Wisdom. As I said, we, as well as the author of Wisdom, are limited by human language in trying to describe a divine event. God operates in eternity, not in space and time.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am just checking back in…

One of the difficulties are people not wanting to believe that the Church did not add any extra canon…you have to go back to the origins of Christianity…and the understanding of orthodoxy vs individual ponderings, treatises, etc…that are reflections of searching human minds…vs the truth about Who God is and who we are not.

With the Church’s compilation of sacred books of the Bible, parallel to this in early Christian theology was the beginning foundation of the science of Christology…

What I am implying is that after much thought and contribution and challenges by many competent saints and theologians, church fathers, and teachers, these questionings were settled…

Again…now using Origen’s term…are we drawing premortal existence from a subordinate God?..

 

[KathleenGee]

If one refuses historical reality and truth that the Church indeed in all honestly took most seriously all forms of theological to define what is of truth and orthodoxy and what is not…then what else can be said?

If you go to other sources that deny the truth of the Catholic Church’s past work, while ours provide that which is accurate, can you accept that??? If not…then what justification can you find for your beliefs with tested and fully investigated Catholic orthodoxy? A theologian’s reflections, even that of saints does not mean they bear witness to the truth of Jesus Christ and God…

The link you are sharing with us in regards to an artist…is art…it does not bear witness to the deposit of faith…we see an artistic expression of a good artist…not a theologian…

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . they were always a part of the Bible from the time it was first assembled and translated into Latin (aka: the Latin Vulgate*) by St. Jerome, under Pope Damasus, in 382 AD . . ."

You are exactly correct. My only point was a different one. They (Wisdom of Solomon and other books labled by the Protestants as “Apocrypha”) were never a part of the “Bible” from the time it was first assembled by the Jews. Between about 400 B.C. and about A.D. 382 the “Bible,” as it were, did not include those books. They, indeed, were added. Indeed, most of them were written after 400 B.C. That’s the only point I was making. Most Christians claim that the Old Testament canon was “closed” or “completed” with Malachi. And that’s an acceptable premise to start from. But once one accepts that premise, one must accept one of the conclusions that can derive from it, namely, that any books later enumerated and accepted as part of that canon can only be said to have been “added” to it. And that is not only historically accurate but entirely an acceptable situation. God is not dead but can speak to the children he never ceased to love. That is the LDS position and we think the Roman Catholic Church not only should and does acknowledge that it is an acceptable position to take but it is historically accurate.

 

[Jerusha]

That is the LDS position and we think the Roman Catholic Church not only should and does acknowledge that it is an acceptable position to take but it is historically accurate.

What makes you think that you have any authority to tell us what to believe in?

Your “logic” is incredible. You tell us that because we accept the Deuterocanon, we believe in an open canon, and that we must either reject the Deuterocanon or accept Mormonism? While, at the same time, Mormons reject the Deuterocanon. Why do Jews celebrate Hanukkah? Why do Mormons and Catholics believe in different levels of the afterlife? Why do Mormons believe that ordinances for the dead and Catholics believe that prayer and offerings for the dead have any effect?

Are there any worthwhile insights and wisdom, amplifying understanding, available in the Deuterocanon? Catholics give a resounding YES to this, and a NO to the BoM.

 

[KathleenGee]

If Mormon beliefs were subjected to the Church – and that is not a group of self-serving men…but many men in – different geographical – and in different language and cultural locations, chosen by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit---- the key to what is of God and what is not – Mormonism would not have to cover up all its past claims.

Likewise the Jews who rejected the Messiah, picked and chose what they wanted without references to the Messiah.

The new construct against Catholicism by Mormonism was its wrong translation of Scripture.

In the end, you either have to believe in the work of the Holy Spirit always present in guiding the Church or you don’t…and are likewise subject to any whim or fancy, not knowing who to believe or not.

Mormons need to understand what is theological hypotheses, reflections, treatises vs orthodoxy and the deposit of faith. You can quote many past saints’ writings but they are deemed of man if they do not hold up to the deposit of faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other question I have is why even need to believe in some pre mortal existence…what is the purpose of it and what does it do for you, Stephen to believe in such a thing…? This was all early speculation in ancient times, and time wise, very close to the event of Christ’s life and resurrection, only within 300 years.

We do not ever see one believer in the Church providing the entire theological truth about God, and Origen’s heresies were just that in the face of so many other orthodox writings. His heresies reflected his own humanity…and Church is just that…a gathering of many people, and not revolving around one or two individuals as new founders.

The Church has indeed showed great wisdom over other belief systems in approving Ecclesiastics, Sirach, Wisdom, Maccabees, the Letter of St. James that now a number of Protestants are gaining the freedom and courage to read them…a work of the Holy Spirit in them.

Approving these books also speaks of the Church’s universal and deeply human perspective of mankind.