The Prophetic Telegraph - No.101
PRE-EXISTENCE
(PART TWO)
GREEK EVIDENCE
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.
The last story in Plato's Republic, which the author relates to his
friend Glaucon, concerns a certain hero from the wars, one Er, son of
Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in battle, and ten days
afterwards, when the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of
corruption, his body was found unaffected by decay, and carried away home to be
buried. On the twelfth day as he was lying on the funeral pile, he returned to
life and told them what he had seen in the other world. His account was
lengthy, and cannot all be retold here, but what concerns us most is what he
saw happening to the spirits (or souls) of men BEFORE THEY CAME TO EARTH.
A certain angelic figure by
the name of Lachesis, daughter of Necessity, said to them,
"Your
genius will not be allotted to you, but you will choose your genius, and let
him who draws the first lot have the first choice, and the life which he
chooses shall be his destiny. Virtue is free, and as a man honours or
dishonours her he will have more or less of her; the responsibility is with the
chooser."
The souls were encouraged
to take great care how they chose their destinies, and were shown a goodly
number of lives as examples of what might happen. All qualities were shown,
whether wealth or poverty, disease or health, and so on, but the goal of virtue was always emphasised. Finally they
were brought to the River of Forgetfulness, where they were obliged to drink,
and as each one drank, so they became unmindful of their past and were
"driven upwards in all manner of ways to their birth, like shooting
stars."
It was after this that Er
awoke and found himself on the funeral pyre. Plato concludes,
"Wherefore
my counsel is, that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after
justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to
endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one
another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when we receive our
reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of
a thousand years which we have been describing."
PLATO.
427 - 347 B.C. His
original name was ARISTOCLES. He was surnamed PLATO because of his broad shoulders.
Greek philosopher, and disciple of SOCRATES, and teacher of ARISTOTLE. He studied under Socrates until
his master's trial, conviction, and death in 399 B.C. After much travelling, he
returned to
SOCRATES.
470 - 399 B.C.
Greek philospher, born in
Some of our readers may
wonder why on earth we should have considered these ancient Greek philosophers
at all, seeing that, (as evangelicals have been taught) Paul condemned them in
his letters, particularly that to the Colossians. But the trouble arises from
ignorance, rather than truth. The problem is identical to that mentioned in the
last paper in connection with the Jewish Talmudic writings. Those who have
studied Plato will at once recognise a philosophy that is clean, logical,
satisfying, and for the most part TRUE. We might add that
Socrates was finally condemned before a Court, and required to drink Hemlock,
from which he died. Shall we not honour him, who died in the pursuit of TRUTH?
Was he not, in his own way, reaching out towards the One whose name is TRUTH?
Just because he had no contact with
Our first quote is from MENO, and is a discussion between Socrates and Meno, also with Meno's slave boy. We take up the dialogue just after
Socrates has questioned the slave boy about his understanding of geometry,
whereby the truth of Pythagoras's theorem is elicited.
Soc. What do you say
of him, Meno? Were not all these answers given out of his own head?
Men. Yes, they were all
his own.
Soc. And yet, as we
were just now saying, he did not know?
Men. True.
Soc. And yet he had
those notions in him?
Men. Yes.
Soc. Then he who does
not know still has true notions of that which he does not know?
Men. He has.
Soc. And at present
these notions are just wakening up in him, as in a dream; but if he were
frequently asked the same questions, in different forms, he would know as well
as anyone at last?
Men. I dare say.
Soc. Without anyone
teaching him, he will recover his knowledge for himself, if he is only asked
questions?
Men. Yes.
Soc. And this
spontaneous recovery in him is recollection?
Men. True.
Soc. And this
knowledge which he now has, must he not either have acquired or always
possessed?
Men. Yes.
Soc. But if he always
possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the
knowledge, he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been
taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other
branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him? You must know that, if
as you say, he was born and bred in your house.
Men. And I am certain
that no one ever did teach him.
Soc. And yet has he
not the knowledge?
Men. That, Socrates,
is most certain.
Soc. But if he did not
acquire this knowledge in this life, then clearly he must have had and learned
it at some other time?
Men. That is evident.
Soc. And that must
have been the time when he was not a man?
Men. Yes.
Soc. And if there have
always been true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and was not a
man, which only need to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him,
his soul must always have possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or
was not a man?
Men. That is clear.
Soc. And if the truth of all
things existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try
to recollect what you do not know, or rather do not remember.
Men. I feel somehow,
that I like what you are saying.
Soc. And I, Meno, like
what I am saying. Some things I have said of which I am not altogether
confident. But that we shall be better and braver and less helpless if we think
that we ought to enquire, than we should have been if we indulged in the idle
fancy that there was no knowing and no use in searching after what we know not;
that is a theme on which I am ready to fight, in word and deed, to the utmost
of my power.
Our comment:- what better
way of summing up the very purpose of writing these Prophetic Telegraphs? We have always said that our papers
are for those who are of a pioneering mind, and who do not shrink from the
necessity to face head on, matters which are perplexing, or not well
understood, or have wrongfully been made into the sacred cows of Christian
religion. When we first read Betty Eadie's fascinating account of her
after-death experience, we knew AT ONCE that the subject of pre-existence had
to be given adequate thought and study. But the TRUTH of it seemed to plant
itself in our spirits from the word go. It was as though, to use the words of
Socrates, we were "remembering'' or ''recollecting'' something that was too deeply
implanted in our memory to recall without the assistance of a triggering
mechanism. By the grace of God we can do that which Paul spoke about in 1 Cor.
2:6-7, to "speak wisdom amongst those who are more mature, and
yet a wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are coming to
naught, but we speak Gods wisdom in a mystery [or sacred secret], even that
wisdom which has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our
glory."
Our second quote comes from
PHAEDO, the "beloved
disciple" of Socrates, and the dialogue is the last before Socrates is condemned to death for
holding to TRUTH.
We enter the discussion at the point where Socrates has been asking his
disciples about the discernment of EQUALITY. His present conversation is with
one by the name of SIMMIAS.
Soc. Then we must have
had some previous knowledge of equality before the time when we first saw equal
things and realised that they were striving after equality, but fell short of
if?
Sim. That is so.
Soc. And at the same
time we are agreed also upon this point, that we have not and could not have
acquired this notion of equality except by sight or touch or one of the other
senses. I am treating them as being all the same.
Sim. They are the
same, Socrates, for the purpose of our argument.
Soc. So it must be
through the senses that we obtained the notion that all sensible equals are
striving after absolute equality but falling short of it. Is that correct?
Sim. Yes, if is.
Soc. So before we
began to see and hear and use our other senses we must somewhere have acquired
the knowledge that there is such a thing as absolute equality; otherwise we could
never have realised, by using if as a standard for comparison, that all equal
objects of sense are desirous of being like it, but are only imperfect copies.
Sim. That is the
logical conclusion, Socrates.
Soc. Did we not begin
to see and hear and possess our other senses from the moment of birth?
Sim. Certainly.
Soc. But we admitted
that we must have obtained our knowledge of equality before we obtained them.
Sim. Yes.
Soc. So we must have
obtained it before birth?
Sirn. So it seems.
Soc. Then if we
obtained if before our birth, and possessed it when we were born, we had
knowledge, both before and at the moment of birth, not only of equality and
relative magnitudes, but of all absolute standards. Our present argument applies no more
to equality than it does to absolute beauty, goodness, uprightness,
holiness, and
I maintain, all those characteristics which we designate in our discussions by
the term "absolute". So we must have obtained knowledge of all these
characteristics before our birth.
Sim. That is so.
Soc. And unless we
invariably forget it after obtaining it, we must always be born KNOWING and
continue to KNOW all through our lives; because "to know" means
simply to retain the knowledge which one has acquired, and not to lose it. Is
not what we call "forgetting" simply the loss of knowledge, Simmias?
Sim. Most certainly,
Socrates.
Soc. And if it is true
that we acquired our knowledge before our birth, and lost it at the moment of
birth, but afterwards by the exercise of our senses upon sensible objects,
recover the knowledge which we had once before, I suppose that what we call
learning will be the recovery of our own knowledge; and surely we should be right in
calling this recollection?
Sim. Quite so.
Soc. Yes, because we
saw that it is possible for the perception of an object by sight or hearing or
any of the other senses to suggest to the percipient, through association
(whether there is any similarity or not), another object which he has
forgotten. So, as I maintain, there are TWO ALTERNATIVES; either we are all born with
knowledge of these standards, and retain it throughout our lives; or else, when
we speak of people learning, they are simply recollecting what they knew
before; in other words learning is recollection.
Sim. Yes, that must be
so, Socrates.
Soc. Which do you
choose then, Simmias? that we are born with knowledge, or that we recollect
after we are born the things of which we possessed knowledge before we were
born?
Sim. I don't know
which to choose on the spur of the moment, Socrates.
Soc. Well, here is
another choice for you to make. What do you think about this? Can a person who
knows a subject thoroughly, explain what he knows?
Sim. Most certainly he
can?
Soc. Do you think that
everyone can explain these questions about which we have just been talking?
Sim. I should like to
think so, but I am very much afraid that by this time tomorrow there will be no
one on this earth who can do it properly. [He was here alluding to his master's
imminent demise.]
Soc. So you don't
think, Simmias, that everyone has knowledge about them?
Sim. Far from it.
Soc. Then they just
recollect what they once learned?
Sim. That must be the
right answer.
Soc. When do our souls
acquire this knowledge? It cannot be AFTER the beginning of our mortal life.
Sim. No, of course
not.
Soc. Then it must be
before.
Sim. Yes.
Soc. Then our souls had
a previous existence, Simmias, before they took on this human shape; they were
independent of our human bodies; and they were possessed of intelligence.
Notice in this dialogue how
the important themes of absolute beauty, goodness, uprightness, and holiness
are brought into the discussion. We wonder whether, if Socrates was alive
today, he might have spoken about the possibility of the Lord implanting the
sense of such things into our brains, in the same manner in which information
is implanted on the hard disk of the computer I am now using. That would have
been Socrates' FIRST ALTERNATIVE, which he bypassed in favour of PRE-EXISTENCE.
From the fourth century
B.C. we now come to our own 20th century, and make reference to a work of C.S.Lewis, who was a great philosopher in his
own right, and who was able to read Plato and enjoy it in the original Greek.
Lewis had a God-given ability to cut through the idiocy of much loose thinking,
and his works remain as classics on the shelves of many Christians. We are
aware of the minority who cast him on one side as "definitely not
Christian" (to use the heading of a pamphlet we have in our possession)
and this is based on the inclusion of "many dubious characters from Greek
mythology" in his Narnia Chronicles. But such thinking only tends to uncover the
poverty of their own understanding. We would like to refer to the last book in
the Narnia series, "The Last
Various other figures are
also forced through this doorway, including a Calormene soldier by the name of EMETH, who finds himself in a very
perplexing world. He sits under a tree and ponders what is happening. Aslan meets with him, and he bows to the great Lion.
Aslan then bent down and
said, "Son, you are welcome."
"Alas
Lord,"
said Emeth, "I am no son of thine, but the servant of Tash."
"Child, all
the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. - - if any
man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he
has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any
man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Asian, it is Tash
whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand,
Child?"
It is impossible to read
such dialogue without being moved to realise that the mercy and grace of God
are everywhere upon the face of this earth, and that ultimately, in the time of
judgment, we shall find that God has seen into the hidden recesses of our
hearts and known our innermost thoughts, and even the motives behind those
thoughts. And there will be many in His Kingdom whom no one knows or even
suspects should be there, and maybe many of those who imagine they should be
there, are absent. Truly "many of the first shall be last, and the last
first."
And Lewis called this man's
name EMETH,
because EMETH
is the Hebrew word for TRUTH throughout the Old Testament. Maybe he also
used it to pay his respects to Plato, whom he admired.