The Jews, along with pagans and Gnostics, believed in the pre-existence of the souls, so verses such as Jer 1:5 reflect that belief. Paul's own teachings reflect that belief, which is why Paul was so near and dear to the Gnostics.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..
What was in the garden was a serpent, the most cunning of all creatures. There is nothing to suggest it was the 'devil' or Satan. That's something people made up at a later date. The Jews did not know the 'devil.' Satan was a faithful angel of the Hebrew God, known only by his title (ha-satan), the accuser.
The devil, as the personification of all evil, is a product of the post-Babylonian Jewish belief influenced by Persian dualism. It wasn't part of Judaic belief before 400 BC, and then only among some sects.
I would not call II Peter a fraud, as that to me would be like saying the Heavenly Father, Christ as well as allllll those holy prophets Peter refers to are frauds as well.
2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, dear friend. It wasn't written by Peter.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth
Your study is ignoring that He is also quoted as saying that those who were actually living when He spoke will be alive when He returns. The "never-ending" generation theory was a necessary rationalization when it became obvious that all those who lived when Jesus spoke were dead. Thus, 2 Peter was a badly needed 'scriptural' evidence of this theory.
Strange that Christ said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be build and yet even the few words that Peter penned get such a slight of hand
By all accounts, Peter never wrote anything that has been attributed to his name.
Even that rich man could see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom across that proverbial gulf and none of them were in flesh bodies.
There was no proverbial golf. They were both in Sheol, except that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man wasn't. The fact that Luke speaks of both being in Sheol tells me that early Christians (or at least those being instructed by Paul) did not believe any souls were in heaven, or that they had any concept of Christian heaven.
The soul has a body, Christ Himself demonstrated that in His visible to that group could go through a wall...
You seem to suggest that Christ resurrected spiritually and not bodily. The Bible, which you believe in, says that God made man out of dirt and then breathed his breath into him and he became human. Humanity, by biblical definition, is a union of body and soul. What you profess is Gnostic. Getting "instructions" from the Word, as you say, tends to do that to many. That's why Christ established a Church, lest everyone drift away according to his own understanding.
I think Aquinas understood this as well
That the Human Soul is brought into Being by a Creative Act of God
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_87.htm
Everything that is brought into being is either generated or created. But the human soul is not generated, either by way of composition of parts or by the generation of the body (Chap. LXXXVI); and yet it comes new into existence, being neither eternal nor pre-existent (Chapp. LXXXIII, LXXXIV): therefore it comes into being by creation. Now, as has been shown above, God alone can create (Chap. XXI).
2. Whatever has existence as subsistent being, is also made in the way that a subsistent being is made: while whatever has no existence as a subsistent being, but is attached to something else, is not made separately, but only under condition of that having been made to which it is attached. But the soul has this peculiarity to distinguish it from other forms, that it is a subsistent being; and the existence which is proper to it communicates to the body. The soul then is made as a subsistent being is made: it is the subject of a making-process all its own, unlike other forms, which are made incidentally in the making of the compounds to which hey belong. But as the soul has no material part, it cannot be made out of any subject-matter: consequently it must be made out of nothing, and so created.
5. The end of a thing answers to its beginning. Now the end of the human soul and its final perfection is, by knowledge and love to transcend the whole order of created things, and attain to its first principle and beginning, which is God. Therefore from God it has properly its first origin.
Holy Scripture seems to insinuate this conclusion: for whereas, speaking of the origin of other animals, it scribes their souls to other causes, as when it says: Let the waters produce the creeping thing of living soul (Gen. i, 20): coming to man, it shows that his soul is created by God, saying: God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life (Gen. ii, 7).
Here is arguments and answers on this
Apparent Arguments to show that the Human Soul does not begin with the Body, but has been from Eternity, with Replies to the same
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_83.htm
Arg. 1. (A.) What will never cease to be, has a power of being always. But of that which has a power of being always it is never true to say that it is not: for a thing continues in being so far as its power of being extends. What therefore will never cease to be, will never either begin to be.
Reply. The power of a thing does not extend to the past, but to the present or future: hence with regard to past events possibility has no place. Therefore from the fact of the soul having a power of being always it does not follow that the soul always has been, but that it always will be. — Besides, that to which power extends does not follow until the power is presupposed. It cannot therefore be concluded that the soul is always except for the time that comes after it has received the power.
Arg. 2. Truth of the intllectual order is imperishable, eternal, necessary. Now from the imperishableness of intellectual truth the being of the soul is shown to be imperishable. In like manner from the eternity of that truth there may be proved the eternity of the soul.
Reply. The eternity of understood truth may be regarded in two ways, — in point of the object which is understood, and in point of the mind whereby it is understood. From the eternity of understood truth in point of the object, there will follow the eternity of the thing, but not the eternity of the thinker. From the eternity of understood truth in point of the understanding mind, the eternity of that thinking soul will follow. But understood truth is eternal, not in the latter but in the former way. As we have seen, the intellectual impressions, whereby our soul understands truth, come to us fresh from the phantasms through the medium of the active intellect. Hence the conclusion is, not that our soul is eternal, but that those understood truths are founded upon something which is eternal. In fact they are founded upon the First Truth, the universal Cause comprehensive of all truth. To this truth our soul stands related, not as the recipient subject to the form which it receives, but as a thing to its proper end: for truth is the good of the understanding and the end thereof. Now we can gather an argument of the duration of a thing from its end, as we can argue the beginning of a thing from its efficient cause: for what is ordained to an everlasting end must be capable of perpetual duration. Hence the immortality of the soul may be argued from the eternity of intellectual truth, but not the eternity of the soul.
Arg. 3. That is not perfect, to which many of its principal parts are wanting. If therefore there daily begin to be as many human souls as there are men born, it is clear that many of its principal parts are daily being added to the universe, and consequently that very many are still wanting to it. It follows that the universe is imperfect, which is impossible.*
Reply. The perfection of the universe goes by species, not by individuals; and human souls do not differ in species, but only in number (Chap. LXXV).
(B.) Some professing the Catholic faith, but imbued with Platonic doctrines, have taken a middle course [between Platonists, who held that individual souls were from eternity, now united with bodies, now released by turns; and Alexander, Averroes, — and possibly Aristotle himself, — deniers of personal immortality]. These men, seeing that according to the Catholic faith nothing is eternal but God, have supposed human souls not to be eternal, but to have been created with the world, or rather before the visible world, and to be united with bodies recurrently as required. Origen was the first professor of the Christian faith to take up this position, and he has since had many followers. The position seems assailable on these grounds.
1. The soul is united with the body as the form and actualising principle thereof. Now though actuality is naturally prior to potentiality, yet, in the same subject, it is posterior to it in time:* for a thing moves from potentiality to actuality. Therefore the seed, which is potentially alive, was before the soul, which is the actuality of life.
2. It is natural to every form to be united to its own proper matter: otherwise the compound of matter and form would be something unnatural. Now that which belongs to a thing according to its nature is assigned to it before that which belongs to it against its nature: for what belongs to a thing against its nature attaches to it incidentally, but what belongs to it according to its nature attaches to it ordinarily; and the incidental is always posterior to the ordinary. It belongs to the soul therefore to be united to the body before being apart from the body.
3. Every part, separated from its whole, is imperfect. But the soul, being the form (Chap. XLVII), is a part of the human species. Therefore, existing by itself, apart from the body, it is imperfect. But the perfect is before the imperfect in the order of natural things.*
(C.) If souls were created without bodies, the question arises how they came to be united with bodies. It must have been either violently or naturally. If violently, the union of the soul with the body is unnatural, and man is an unnatural compound of soul and body, which cannot be true. But if souls are naturally united with bodies, then they were created with a physical tendency (appetitus naturalis) to such union. Now a physical tendency works itself out at once, unless something comes in the way. Souls then should have been united with bodies from the instant of their creation except for some intervening obstacle. But any obstacle intervening to arrest a physical tendency, or natural craving, does violence to the same. Therefore it would have been by violence that souls were for a period separated from their bodies, which is an awkward conclusion.*
(D.) But if it be said that both states alike are natural to the soul, as well the state of union with the body as the state of separation, according to difference of times, this appears to be impossible, — because points of natural variation are accidents to the subject in which they occur, as age and youth: if then union with body and separation from a body are natural variations to the soul, the union of the soul with the body will be an accident; and man, the result of that union, will not be an ordinary, regular entity (ens per se), but a casual, incidental being (ens per accidens).
(E.) But if it is said that souls are united with bodies neither violently nor naturally, but of their own spontaneous will, that cannot be. For none is willing to come to a worse state except under deception. But the soul is in a higher state away from the body, especially according to the Platonists, who say that by union with the body the soul suffers forgetfulness of what it knew before, and is hindered from the contemplation of pure truth. At that rate it has no willingness to be united with a body except for some deceit practised upon it. Threfore, supposing it to have pre-existed before the body, it would not be united therewith of its own accord.
(F.) But if as an alternative it is said that the soul is united with the body neither by nature, nor by its own will, but by a divine ordinance, this again does not appear a suitable arrangement, on the supposition that souls were created before bodies. For God has established everything according to the proper mode of its nature: hence it is said: God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good (Gen. i, 31). If then He created souls apart from bodies, we must say that this mode of being is better suited to their nature. But it is not proper for an ordinance of divine goodness to reduce things to a lower state, but rather to rise them to a higher. At that rate the union of soul with body could not be the result of a divine ordinance.
(G.) This consideration moved Origen to suppose that when souls, created from the beginning of time, came by divine ordinance to be united with bodies, it was for their punishment. He supposed that they had sinned before they came into bodies, and that according to the amount of their guilt they were united with bodies of various degrees of nobility, shut up in them as in prisons. But this supposition cannot stand for reasons alleged above (Chap. XLIV).
The Jews, along with pagans and Gnostics, believed in the pre-existence of the souls, so verses such as Jer 1:5 reflect that belief. Paul's own teachings reflect that belief, which is why Paul was so near and dear to the Gnostics.
So are you saying that what the Heavenly Father said to Jeremiah was a LIE for the sole purpose to mislead people? Paul was elected, chosen and his free will at the time was to rid this earth as many 'Christians' as possibly could. So IF God chose him why would God pick somebody who was so totally wrong about what Jeremiah had already penned.
Now I do not know who you are speaking of when you use the word Jews, but when Jeremiah was walking this earth the House of Israel, those ten tribes, had already been sent into captivity to the Assyrian king to the north and on their way to being dispersed throughout this world. Their punishment was to forget through the generations who they ever were and it still holds to this day. Not since that civil war has the children of Jacob/Israel been a nation which is yet to take place. The House of Judah was in the process of being sent down to Babylon and they were told to go and the king and his religious class did everything in their human power to resist. This bunch even threw Jeremiah in a cistern and treated Jeremiah like a curse rejecting the WORD from God. We can read what happened to the king and his sons while it was Jeremiah that was eventually given charge over the daughters of the king.
Any church that ignores and clips out the words of Jeremiah are ignoring the voice of the Heavenly Father and even His saving Hands through His only begotten Son.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..
What was in the garden was a serpent, the most cunning of all creatures. There is nothing to suggest it was the 'devil' or Satan. That's something people made up at a later date. The Jews did not know the 'devil.' Satan was a faithful angel of the Hebrew God, known only by his title (ha-satan), the accuser.
What kind of snake was the 'serpent'? Another place says that the title/role of the serpent is another name for the devil. What kind of mythology are you making this mythical snake that could beguile ... means 'holy seduce' Eve by whispering sweet nothings into her ear? The devil was created perfect and he was so filled with himself that he decided he would be god. Ezekiel and Isaiah describe that rebellion. Is there another god beside the Hebrew God?
There is a whole lot of deception made up about what that 'original' sin was, eating apples and ending up in a fig grove sewing together *FIG* leaves to cover up nakedness.... Just hmmmmmm to much for some churches to deal with cover their eyes and plug their ears.... Yet Christ cursed that *FIG* tree and right in the middled of telling the signs of His return tellllllllls us even to this day "Learn ye the parable of the *FIG* tree. So I will agree with you about the church making up a whole lot of pleasing to the ear junk to cover over what really took place.... But hey Christ did say these things need be and it is up to the Heavenly Father to tear off the blinders to whomever He elects.
The devil, as the personification of all evil, is a product of the post-Babylonian Jewish belief influenced by Persian dualism. It wasn't part of Judaic belief before 400 BC, and then only among some sects.
HUH NO the devil was well described by Moses through out the Torah, and even in the Book of Job, and then oh never mind toooo deep for some minds.
I would not call II Peter a fraud, as that to me would be like saying the Heavenly Father, Christ as well as allllll those holy prophets Peter refers to are frauds as well. 2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, dear friend. It wasn't written by Peter.
You do have the freeeeee willl to discount, ignore, and clip out anything. Not my job to change your mind.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth
Your study is ignoring that He is also quoted as saying that those who were actually living when He spoke will be alive when He returns. The "never-ending" generation theory was a necessary rationalization when it became obvious that all those who lived when Jesus spoke were dead. Thus, 2 Peter was a badly needed 'scriptural' evidence of this theory.
Yes and Christ was NOT speaking of the flesh body, as was the purpose of the transfiguration (among other things) and even Paul goes into as well as others about the two different bodies. Christ said fear not them which kill the body, (flesh) but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. What kind of 'fire' do you suppose it will take to destroy a 'soul'? Once again Peter was there and in the asking Christ what would be the sign of his return.... Christ listed events some of which have NOT happened yet that would 'mark' His return. So all Peter did was elaborate upon events - segments of time- as to what had been what was and what would be. We are still in the world (age) Peter calls NOW and will be until the flesh is no longer the vessel that houses the soul.
Paul says at the last trump, there are seven, that alllll flesh will be changed, good bad and the ugly. AS even from the time of Moses there was the knowledge that flesh could not see God thus the people were in fear of dying.
Strange that Christ said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be build and yet even the few words that Peter penned get such a slight of hand
By all accounts, Peter never wrote anything that has been attributed to his name.
You do realize this statement comes across as a proclamation from the Heavenly Father. And at the pace you are going, there is not going to be much of the Bible... that anybody can pay attention to. Which most have been given the free will to make claims to protect their own system and call if of God. Nothing new there.
Even that rich man could see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom across that proverbial gulf and none of them were in flesh bodies.
There was no proverbial golf. They were both in Sheol, except that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man wasn't. The fact that Luke speaks of both being in Sheol tells me that early Christians (or at least those being instructed by Paul) did not believe any souls were in heaven, or that they had any concept of Christian heaven.
Who comforted Lazarus? Quite an omission you have there. There was a separation wherein the 'rich man' could not cross to get the comfort Lazarus was offered and none of them were in a flesh body but yet it could be seen.
The soul has a body, Christ Himself demonstrated that in His visible to that group could go through a wall...
You seem to suggest that Christ resurrected spiritually and not bodily. The Bible, which you believe in, says that God made man out of dirt and then breathed his breath into him and he became human. Humanity, by biblical definition, is a union of body and soul. What you profess is Gnostic. Getting "instructions" from the Word, as you say, tends to do that to many. That's why Christ established a Church, lest everyone drift away according to his own understanding.
Was not the purpose of the Mount of Transfiguration to demonstrate that body in 'spirit' loooooks just like the flesh body yet none were literally in flesh bodies. God buried Moses himself so the devil would not have access to his flesh body, and now where did Elijah get buried??? The flesh body of Christ was transfigured and NO remains were left so some would not use said flesh remains to make the claim that Christ did not raise up that Temple. It would go against the laws of nature, say gravity, for Christ in the flesh body to have risen.
Flesh will die, and nobody is going to come back looking for their dead bones. The soul-spirit body does not earn their reward life eternal or complete and total removal, until that future event. Nobody will go to the proverbial fire of 'hell' without full understanding from the beginning to the end.