The Apocalypse of Abraham is an ancient Jewish document (likely written in the first century AD) that was eventually preserved and passed down by Christian hands. Today we only have access to it through the Slavonic (Slavic) manuscripts kept by the Russian Orthodox church for centuries. It only became known in Western circles towards the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the first English translation of this text appeared in the Improvement Era (an LDS publication) in 1898. The LDS Church obviously had an interest in this text because of its many similarities to their own Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith had translated from some Egyptian papyri that he had obtained in the 1830s. Interestingly, the Apocalypse of Abraham has many parallels with the Book of Moses as well.

I am providing you with a link here to the notes I made for use in my presentation. Unfortunately, not all of the information I gathered is particularly interesting, as my assignment was to present the “State of the Question,” an analysis of current scholarly opinion on the text, with emphasis on its origin, dating, and other technical issues. Towards the end, I did note some theological themes in the text that would be of interest to our class. So, for whatever it’s worth, I give you my notes. If you have any further questions on them, please feel free to ask me.  Here is the link:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9gpgs4_2gqzqcnfc

We have recently been discussing the early Christian thinker Origen in my “Age of the Fathers” class. While we have been focusing mostly on his thoughts regarding the Trinity, there has been much in my readings that have struck as peculiarly familiar to my beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. I guess this is to be expected, to an extent, since he was fairly early–born ca. 185 AD. Also, he was the student of Clement of Alexandria and followed the intruiging line of Alexandrian thought. However, many of my fellow students (and many Christians in general) do not especially like Origen. One of my fellow students referred to him as a “space cadet.” One of the frequent complaints is that he was obviously out of touch with mainstream Christianity, being too highly influenced by Greek philosophy (isn’t it funny how that argument can go both ways?).

Origen, like the rest of the Alexandrian school, was highly trained in philosophy. However, he didn’t see philosophy as more important than revelation, but did see it as a reliable source of truth¹.

Despite his scholarly training, Origen does not necessarily try to make Christian doctrine fit his understanding of Greek philosophy. He just wants to organize and systematize the various Christian beliefs using Aristotelian methods of presenting knowledge. Origen created the first systematic theology of Christian beliefs. His reason for doing so, in his words:

Since many…of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.”²

It is important to note that Origen does not look to Greek philosophical theories to understand Christian doctrines. He wishes only to use the format of the scientific treatise as the vehicle for expounding Christian doctrine. If he sometimes is influenced by philosophical theories, such as Plato’s view that souls exist prior to their birth into mortality, he also has scriptural reasons for accepting that view. In particular his view of the Godhead does not draw on Greek models of deity. Origen holds that the Son makes “the willing in himself just what it was in the Father, so that…the will of the Son is inseparable from the will of the Father, so that there are no longer two wills but one. And this unity of will is the reason for the saying of the Son ‘I and my Father are one [John 10:30].’”³

Thus “they are two separate persons, but one in unity and concord of mind and in identity of will.” And Origen expressly resists the Greek tendency to make God impassible or incapable of emotion:

[Jesus] came down to earth in pity for human kind, he endured our passions and sufferings before he suffered the cross, and he deigned to assume our flesh…What is that passion which he suffered for us? It is the passion of love. The Father himself and the God of the whole universe is “long-suffering, full of mercy and pity” [Psalm 86:15]. Must he not then, in some sense, be exposed to suffering?…The Father himself is not impassible. If he is besought he shows pity and compassion;he feels, in some sort, the passion of love. Origen is not trying to make the Father and the Son sound like the ineffable One and the eternal Logos of the Platonists. He is trying to put into the language of philosphy the traits of God he finds in the Bible.⁴

More On Jesus as a Subordinate God:

In his Commentary on John, Origen noted a difference between the godhood of the Father and that of the Son. Commenting on John’s Prologue (the first verses of John 1), he explains the difference (in the Greek text) between ho Theos (God, with the article) and Theos (without the article) refers to the Father and the Son. Ho Theos, or The God, is the proper term for the Father, the source of all being. The Logos is termed simply Theos, God, conveying the derivative nature of the Son’s divinity. Elsewhere, as Norman Russell explains, this distinction helps Origen explain how the Father and the Son are two Gods in one sense and one God in another. They are two in so far as they are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. At the same time they are one God in the same way that Adam and Eve are one flesh and Christ and the righteous man are one in spirit. Flesh, spirit, and god are predicates in ascending order of honour and importance.⁵

On Deification:

Just as Christ derived his godhood from the Father and could thus also be called a God, Origen believed that the term “god” could be applied to angels and righteous human beings. He saw the “gods” as the highest class of rational beings alongside the “thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities of Col. 1:16. He points out Psalms 50:1 (LXX), 136:2, 82:6, and others and compared them with Matt. 22:32, where God is described as the God not of the dead but of the living. The “gods” are therefore living beings and not the dead, or lifeless idols. For Origen, the angelic orders form a continuum extending from the gods down to men. This enables Origen to interpret the “gods” of Scripture sometimes as angels but more often as human beings who have been promoted to the angelic life. The gods are “those to whom the Word of God came” (John 10:35). they are the saints, the perfect, those who live in beatitude. Through participation in God, they have been transformed from men into angels or gods.⁶

On the Preexistence of Souls:

Origen believed that spirits existed in another world prior to their birth into human bodies. Some have imagined that he believed in reincarnation, but this doesn’t appear to have been the case. In his own words:

When the Scriptures are carefully examined regarding Jacob and Esau, it is not found to be unrighteous of God to have said–before they were born, or had done anything in this life–that “the older will serve the younger.” However, it is not unrighteous…if we feel that Jacob was worthily beloved by God according to the deserts of his previous life…Owing to cause that have previously existed, a different office is prepared by the Creator for each one in proportion to the degree of his merit.

It appears to me that this will be seen more clearly at last if each being–whether heavenly, earthly, or infernal–is said to have the causes of his diversity in himself, prior to his bodily birth….There is no doubt that at the Day of Judgment, the good will be separated from the bad (and the just from the unjust) and all will be distributed according to their deserts, by the sentence of God…Similarly, I am of the opinion that such a state of things was the case in the past (i.e., in the pre-mortal world).

I think it should be inquired into as to the reasons why a human soul is acted on sometimes by good and at other times by bad. I suspect the reason for this is older than the bodily birth of the individual…To all these instances, those who maintain that everything in the world is under the administration of Divine providence can give no other answer (as it appears to me) to show that no sadow of injustice rests upon the divine government than to hold that there were ceratin causes of prior existence. And in consequence of this prior existence, our souls contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, before their birth in the body.

This is the objection which they generally raise: They say, “If the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world began?”…I say that God did not begin to work for the first time when he made this visible world. Just as there will be another world after its destruction, so also I believe that other worlds existed before the present one came into being. And both of these positions will be confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture…That before this world others also existed is shown by Ecclesiastes, in the words…”Who will speak and say, ‘Look! This is new’? It has already been in the worlds that have been before us” [Eccles. 1:9, 10, LXX].⁷

There is much, much more in Origen’s writings that would seem familiar and interesting to Latter-day Saints. While I obviously can’t put it all in one post, there are other reasons why I can’t provide you with all that he said that would be of interest. Although Origen would become one of the most popular of the early Church writers ever, he was condemned by later popes as a heretic. As Christianity changed, falling further into apostasy, Origen’s ideas were seen as more and more unorthodox. Later church scholars who preserved Origen’s writings and translated them into Latin, etc., conveniently edited, changed, inserted, omitted things from Origen’s writings that they saw as heretical or not matching with their beliefs. Most of what we have from Origen’s original +/- 2000 works come to us throught the Latin historian Rufinus. Consider the following concerning his opinion on translating/editing Origen’s materials.

Rufinus on Origen’s writings:

Wherever, therefore, we have found in his books anything contrary to that which was piously established by him about the Trinity in other places, either we have omitted it as corrupt and  interpolated, or edited it according to that pattern that we often find asserted by himself. If, however, speaking to the trained and learned, he writes obscurely because he desires to briefly pass over something, we, to make the passage plainer, have added those things that we have read on the same subject openly in his other books…All who shall copy or read this…shall neither add anything to this writing, nor remove anything, nor insert anything, nor change anything.⁸

While Rufinus looks unfavorably upon anyone tinkering with his translations, he felt justified in heavily editing the original documents. Now, unfortunately, when we read Origen (at least from the commonly accepted Latin translation), we don’t know if it is Origen speaking or if it is Rufinus inserting his own version of Origen’s words. Even worse, Rufinus claimed that he was just following the lead of other handlers of Origen’s works before him. 

Rufinus on Macarius:

…Who when he translated over seventy works of Origen, which are called homilies and also several of his writings on the apostle into Latin in which are found several offensive passages, therefore he removed or cleaned up all of these when he translated, so that a Latin reader would find nothing in them that disagrees with our belief. This, therefore, we follow even if we are not so eloquent, nevertheless as much as we can, by the same rules, watching to be sure not to reveal those passages in the books of Origen that disagree and contradict with himself.⁹

Perhaps if we had the opportunity to have direct access to more of Origen’s writings, instead of having them filtered through editors who saw no problem in changing what were probably some of his most interesting concepts, we would gain through them a greater insight into what some of the earliest Christians believed.

1. Noel B. Reynolds, “What Went Wrong for the Early Christians,” Early Christians in Disarray (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 11
2. Origen, On First Principles, proemium 2, as cited in Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach, “The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity,” Early Christians in Disarray, 216
3. Ibid., 218
4. Ibid., 218
5. See discussion in Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 145
6. Russell, 146
7. These quotes taken from David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 489
8. As cited in John Gee, “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity,” in Early Christians in Disarray, 172
9. Ibid., 173

Earlier on this week in Dr. Orlov’s class we had an absolute smorgasbord of a discussion.  The subject was the text often called The Life of Adam and Eve, known from the many manuscripts extant in various languages, including Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Coptic (fragments), Georgian, and Armenian. This document is an apocryphal story of Adam and Eve which expands on the Genesis story. To see English translations of the various versions of the story, please go here.  Some versions are not complete and/or have additional narratives included, so it is helpful to compare the different versions.

It is hard to know when this document was written. It was very influential among Christians from early AD to the Middle Ages.  It has many features that appear to be very Christian, likely because it passed through the hands of so many Christian editors, but most of the traditions present are definitely Jewish (according to Orlov). There is a possibility that the bulk of the material could have originally come from Jewish sources/traditions. In Orlov’s view, it is important if this is based on Jewish traditions. He would actually be very disappointed if it were not. If it is Jewish, much of what is in Gospels can be traced back to this type of tradition–if it isn’t of Jewish origin, this tradition is based on Gospels (which Orlov said would “steal my soul”).

It is generally accepted by scholars that, of the versions we have, the earliest is the Greek version- which is sometimes referred to, interestingly (for LDS), as the Apoclypse of Moses.

Fall of Satan and His Angels and the Worship of Adam

The Life of Adam and Eve has many added details that would be of interest to latter-day saints. I would like to begin with its version of the fall of Satan and the related story about how God commanded the angels to worship Adam.  In this literature, we have a different version of the fall of Satan/rebellious angels than what we found in 1 Enoch. In this tradition, Satan falls before the fall of Adam–instead of later on in the time of Enoch.

We learn about all of this in the text under the section “Fall of Satan.” The text tells us of how Adam and Eve are feeling sorry for themselves and decide to repent and make penitence before the Lord by going and standing in the river (Adam goes to the river Jordan and Eve to the Tigris), with water up to their necks for 40 days (compare BAPTISM). While they are thus engaged, Satan comes to Eve to try to tempt her for a second time, disguising himself as a “cherub with splendid attire” or “a brilliant angel”. He persuades Eve to quit her penitence and go to Adam. When Adam sees that Eve has been deceived again, he is upset with her, but more so with Satan. Adam cannot understand this enmity and probes the Enemy for a reason:

What evil have we done to you? For it is because of your calumnies that we went out from paradise. Is it because we have caused you to be expelled that you are angry against us?
11.3 Or is it because of us that you were despoiled of your glory? Or is it, in some way, by our action that you are in such deficiency? Or are we the only creatures of God that you fight against us alone?

Satan reminds the human couple of events that transpired before, which they have no memory of (from the Armenian version):

12.1 Satan also wept loudly and said to Adam. “All my arrogance and sorrow came to pass because of you; for, because of you I went forth from my dwelling; and because of you I was alienated from the throne of the cherubs who, having spread out a shelter, used to enclose me; because of you my feet have trodden the earth.”
12.2 Adam replied and said to him,
12.3 “What are our sins against you, that you did all this to us?”
13.1 Satan replied and said, “You did nothing to me, but I came to this measure because of you, on the day on which you were created, for I went forth on that day.
13.2 When God breathed his spirit into you, you received the likeness of his image. Thereupon, Michael came and made you bow down before God. God said to Michael, ‘Behold I have made Adam in the likeness of my image.’
14.1 Then Michael summoned all the angels. and God said to them,’Come, bow down to god whom I made.’
14.2 Michael bowed first. He called me and said. ‘You too, bow down to Adam.’
14.3 I said, ‘Go away, Michael! I shall not bow down to him who is posterior to me, for I am former. Why is it proper for me to bow down to him?’
15.1 The other angels, too, who were with me, heard this, and my words seemed pleasing to them and they did not prostrate themselves to you, Adam.
16.1 Thereupon, God became angry with me and commanded to expel us from our dwelling and to cast me and my angels, who were in agreement with me, to the earth; and you were at the same time in the Garden.
16.2 When I realized that because of you I had gone forth from the dwelling of light and was in sorrows and pains,
16.3 then I prepared a trap for you, so that I might alienate you from your happiness just as I, too, had been alienated because of you.”
17.1 When Adam heard this, he said to the Lord, ‘Lord, my soul is in your hand. Make this enemy of mine distant from me, who desires to lead me astray, I who am searching for the light that I have lost.”
17.2 At that time Satan passed away from him.
17.3 Adam stood from then on in the waters of repentance, and Eve remained fallen upon the ground for three days, like one dead. Then, after three days, she arose from the earth,

Interestingly, the text informs us that the reason for Satan’s fall was that he refused to worship Adam, whom God had created. Because Adam is in the image of God, God presents him as worthy of veneration by the angels. He even refers to Adam as “god”.  Satan, feeling that he is older and thus superior to Adam, rebels and convinces many of his followers to do likewise. For this disobedience, God expels Satan and his angels from their glorious status in heaven and confines them to Earth.  Satan then decides to cause trouble for Adam, so that Adam may also lose his glorious status and become miserable like himself.

Note the following images depicting the events of this story:

Reproduction made by the Comte Auguste de Bastard between 1832 and 1869. In R. Green, Herrad of Hohenbourg:Hortus Deliciarum, pl. I.

The above image depicts the moment when God pronounces “Let there be light,” which is understood here to mean the creation of the angels. God is enthroned and giving the sign of blessing to his creation, the angels who stand on either side of the throne.

The above depicts Lucifer arrayed in distinctive garb, and holding the tokens of authority: a staff and orb. His wings extend over his attending angels, who display a scroll with the text of Ezekiel 28:12 written on it.

Hortus Deliciarum, fol. 3v., ca. 1176-1196, Hohenbourg (Alsace), from R. Green, Herrad of Hohenbourg:Hortus Deliciarum, pl. 2. Original destroyed in fire in 1870; the image here reproduces a tracing of the miniature by Christian Moritz Engelhardt (1812-1818).

Panel 1 shows Lucifer plotting rebellion against God with his conspiring angels. He no longer holds the tokens of authority that distinguished him in Folio 3r. The conspiring angels hold an unfurled scroll with the text of Isaiah 14:13–14 written on it. Panel 2 shows the struggle of the loyal angels under the leadership of the archangel Michael agains the rebel angels. Michael strikes the fallen Lucifer with a trident, while other angels similarly cast down rebel angels from the heavenly sphere to the lower realms.

And one more, just for fun:

Here all three Members of the Trinity are depicted–note that they all look identical.

For more information on these images, see this page.

As far as the fall of Satan goes, this text a tradition in which there is a pre-mortal war/rebellion in heaven and Satan and company are expelled at that early point. This idea is not presented so clearly in the Bible nor in the Enochic literature. 

Further Evidence for the Worship of Adam 

Juliana Vazquez, a fellow classmate, did some great research on the legends and traditions behind this story. With her permission, I share some additional notes from her presentation on the topic:

Three Different Forms of the Theme of Angels Adoring Adam (from Various Rabbinic writings)

1. Angels mistake Adam for God and almost exclaim “Holy!”, but God makes Adam sleep, showing that he is just human.

2. All creatures were so in awe of Adam’s God-like qualities that they want to worship him as Lord, but Adam corrects them.

3. Angels notice how much Adam resembles God and ask, “Are there two powers in the world?” 

Legends and Traditions Behind Adam as Made in the Image of God

A. Drawing on a collection of Dead Sea Scrolls fragments known as Words of the Luminaries (4Q504), some scholars argue that passages in Gen. 1 & 3 which say that Adam was made in the image of God perhaps signify that Adam shared in God’s brightness¹

1. Some Jewish renderings of these parts in Genesis have God making garments of light for Adam and Eve instead of garments of skin, arguing for the pluperfect tense so that A. & E. were wearing this luminous attire before the fall, which would make the most sense

a) Later Rabbinic writings focus on the luminosity & glory of Adam’s face rather than on his garments

B. In some of the 4th century writings of Pseudo-Macarius, the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created is closely conneced to his brightness and glory–Adam was created in “the luminous image of God’s glory”²

C. In early Rabbinic materials Adam acts as a Vice-Demiurge in creating the world

D. In an account of creation in 2 Enoch, God speaks of Adam thus: “And on the earth I assigned him to be a second angel, honored and great and glorious.  And I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth, and to have my wisdom.  And there was nothing comparable to him on earth, even among the creatures that exist” (30:11-12).³

E. TheTestament of Abraham identified Adam with the glorious man in heaven who sits upon a glorious throne at the gatges of pradise, looking at souls being judged and led either to heaven or hell: “And outside the two gates of that place, they saw a man seated on a golden throne.  And the appearance of that man was terrifying, like the Master’s” (11:4, rec. A)⁴

 My thanks to Juliana for her notes. There are many further items that I could, and would like to, bring out from The Life of Adam and Eve, but that will not all fit here at this time.

This page has further links that include more commentaries on these topics, including other Second Temple traditions, Patristic commentaries, and even material from the Koran on the veneration of Adam. 

Dr. Orlov had the following to say concerning the importance of this literature to Christians and the antiquity of the traditions (I am paraphrasing from my notes):

The New Testament is full of Adamic traditions–did the Christians suddenly make it all up? No, these traditions already existed when the Gospels were written. Matthew, Mark, etc., didn’t invent this material–they use many motifs that make sense only in context of Adamic traditions–(e.g.) Christ is presented as second Adam–These are traditions that far exceed the Old Testament material. The Enochic literature already has these traditions–the same set of motifs applied to Enoch. There are many mediatorial figures mentioned in Second Temple literature that pose as a Second Adam–how could this be a later development unique to Christians? It wasn’t. Son of Man is a Second Adam (Daniel 7)–Obviously this is pre-Christian–anointed Cherub is second Adam already in Ezekiel. Paul had access to these traditions in Jewish circles. This becomes standard Christian anthropology. Paul and Synoptics decided to use these traditions as vehicle for their theology–they claimed ownership. These traditions were not created from scratch by gospel writers and Paul. This all is present in Second Temple period. If there are Moses and Jacob traditions which are ancient, why not ancient Adamic traditions? A lot of these Adamic traditions are attested to in Josephus–he certainly wasn’t Christian.

I see these traditions as helpful to our understanding of what Israel believed about God, what the Jews were expecting in a Messiah, how Christians understood the figure of Jesus Christ, and the doctrines of the temple (both ancient and modern). Adam was believed to be the image of God, just as the pagans had images/idols of their gods.  Adam was the earthly representation of the Lord, made from the earth to resemble Him in every way. Before the Fall, Adam was even glorious and shining like God. Later prophets, priests, and kings were supposed to represent Adam, the first prophet, priest, and king. Individuals who entered the temple acted out a progressive return to heaven, reversing Adam’s departure. Those who returned to the presence of God were seen as regaining the luminous glory of the pre-lapsarian Adam (e.g. Moses’ glowing face after seeing YHWH on Mt. Sinai). Some believed that the figure who Ezekiel saw in his merkabah vision was Adam, the physical image of God. He is seen as the divine anthropomorphic figure sitting on the heavenly throne in many traditions. He is seen as having participated in the creation (some texts say that the Spirit hovering over the waters is the soul of Adam), and Adam is recognized as a god. Adam is seen as a mediatorial figure and is thus connected to the figure of the Messiah. In the NT, Jesus is called the second Adam. 

This is all very interesting to the LDS, because of the high status that Joseph Smith afforded Adam, calling him the archangel Michael (which I see as more of a position/title than a personal name), and placing him in the company of Jehovah in the creation of the earth, etc. Joseph Smith also connects Adam to the figure seated on the throne in Daniel 7, to whom the Son of Man will come. All these Adamic traditions may also give context to (you knew it was coming) some of Brigham Young’s ideas on Adam. Certainly, this topic deserves much more attention than what I have presented here, but hopefully these notes are useful as a starting point.

1. Andrei Orlov, “Vested with God’s Glory: Moses as the Luminous Counterpart of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Macarian Homilies” from “Memorial Annie Jaubert (1912-1980)” Xristianskij Vostok 4.10 (2002) 740-755.
2. Ibid.
3. J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. I. (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 152.
4. Ibid., 888

Sarah Hinze

For those who read my previous post on Roy Mills’ book about his memories of the premortal life, this post will be an exciting follow-up, with further information on individuals who have had distinct experiences with the premortal existence. After my father, whose name is also David Larsen, read the Mills post, he referred me to an individual he knows from IANDS (International Association for Near Death Studies) who specializes in “pre-birth experiences.” Her name is Sarah Hinze and she has done extensive research and writing on this phenomenon, focusing on collecting experiences from individuals who claim to have received communication from a child before he/she was born, or even before the child was even conceived.  Such experiences indicate that the child already exists in spirit long before his/her birth into the world, and that the “self” not only continues after this life, but also precedes it. In this post, I would like to give a brief overview of Sarah Hinze’s work.

Sarah’s research in this area began nearly twenty years ago, after she had a “pre-birth experience” (PBE) in the form of a communication from a child that she miscarried. Since then she has interviewed individuals and chronicled many of these types of communication from children before they are born. Her work has provided significant evidence that unborn children can warn, protect and enlighten us from the spirit realm. Most often these children appear to announce it is their time to be born. This communication can occur between the child and a parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, etc., as they come to warn, protect and enlighten through the veil.

According to Sarah’s website, www.sarahhinze.com or www.royalchild.com, there are several diverse ways in which such a communication can be received.

• During a Near Death Experience (NDE): there are many accounts of NDEs which describe a visit to the premortal realm where future children are contacted.
• Very vivid dreams: in which the individual sees and/or converses with a being that the individual knows has not yet been born but will be born in the future. Some cultures call this type of experience “announcing dreams”. These dreams are often extremely vivid and memorable.
• Visions: PBEr sees distinctly male or female form, various “ages”, variously attired, while awake; sometimes form is accompanied by glow or light, sometimes not; sometimes appears and/or disappears suddenly.
• Auditory: Experiencer hears a voiced message from or about the preborn. Often the voice is a child, gives its preferred name, announces that it needs to come to earth now, and/or refers to the parent as “father” or “mother”.
• Telepathy: Preborn beings witnessed by communication directly to the experiencer’s mind; telepathic or spiritual communication, as often described in NDEs.
• Sensory: An individual vividly senses an unseen presence hovering around them. Along with the presence can be a distinct feeling of urgency.

Other pre-birth accounts include: an individual being able to remember an escort who brought him/her to earth, individuals having flashbacks or being able to remember themselves or siblings in a prebirth/premortal state, children who will be adopted appearing to either the adoptive or biological parents to announce the situation that will take place, and other types of experiences.

The website also describes ten general aspects of the “typical” prebirth experience:

• Radiation of love: The preborn radiates a powerful love to the prebirth experiencer, similar to the love felt from the light in the NDE.
• Celestial light: The preborn may radiate, or appear in, a brilliant light that does not hurt the eyes and conveys extraordinary peace, similar to the light in the NDE.
• Thankful and eager to come to earth: The preborn is excited about earth life, views it as a growth opportunity, and is thankful that the parents are providing this opportunity. Yet there may be some fear of the unknown in facing the transition to earth life.
• Leaving a heavenly home: The preborn is eager to enter earth life, but expresses a degree of loss or apprehension at leaving the sanctuary of his heavenly home.
• A time to come to earth: The preborn often indicates that the time in which one comes to earth is assigned, as part of a divine timetable, so personalized growth experiences can be achieved.
• A unique mission: The preborn message conveys that each individual has special purposes or missions to accomplish during his specified time on earth.
• Protection/Warning: Some preborn appearances provide protection or warning to the recipient. (In the case studies reviewed, aid to the PBErs was provided by the preborn to prevent or recover from suicide attempts, abuse, rape, birth control, and abortion that would block the preborn’s conception and birth on earth.)
• Messages: Some preborn appearances provide messages about something the future parent(s) or others must do as part of their earth mission or to help the preborn.
• Escort to earth: Some preborns are brought to earth by escorts (just as some NDErs are escorted to the life after life).
• Deja vu: Some PBEs consist of memories or flashbacks of one’s pre-earth life.

In another section of the website, “PBE Accounts“, Sarah provides a few of the many prebirth stories that she has recorded. There are even a couple of accounts from celebrities. Here, for example, is an excerpt from John Denver’s experience when he and his wife were trying to adopt a child:

“Once we started processing the adoption papers, whenever I found a quiet moment in the day, including just before I got out of bed in the morning, I offered a prayer to this little spirit out there: ‘Whoever you are, wherever you are, I don’t know what you have to go through to get here and be with us, but we love you very much and can’t wait to be with you.’

“With all of those anticipations streaming through me, we came to New York. I had four sold out nights at Madison Square Garden and we were staying at the Sherry-Netherland. It was May 12, 1974, and that night I dreamed that three people in white robes came and gave me a little boy. We hadn’t specified either sex in our communication with the adoption agency, all we wanted was that the baby be healthy enough to live with us in the mountains. We were active people, we liked to be outside, and we wanted that for our baby as well. But in my dream, when the baby was put into my arms, I noticed that it was a boy-a dark-faced boy with round eyes and a bit of an overbite-and as I was holding him, he looked up, grabbed my thumb, and smiled.

“In the morning, I recounted the dream to Annie. Eleven days later, Zak was born. We didn’t see him then, but we were notified about his birth, and when he was about two months old we went up to Minnesota to the adoption agency to pick him up…

Anyway, we arrived at the agency. Zak was being flown up from the South. There were papers to be signed. There was also a little formal procedure to go through, designed to help adoptive parents deal with the anxiety of meeting their child.

“…This was where you were supposed to get your first glimpse of your baby. We had just been told that the young woman who was bringing Zak had been delayed and we were trying to keep from feeling disappointed, when the door at the far end of the hall opened and the woman appeared after all, with our child. Without a word, she came running down the hall and handed the baby to me. He had round eyes and this little bit of an overbite, and when I held him he smiled and grabbed my thumb. Zak was the child in my dream-exactly the same child! I recognized his face and I think he recognized mine. At least he looked at me in the most knowing way. Right there, dream and reality came together for me.”

Quoted From Take Me Home: An Autobiography by John Denver & Arthur Tobier, Harmony Books: New York, p.116

John Denver with Zak

Another such experience was that of Richard Dreyfuss. In an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20 after the Academy Awards in 1996, Dreyfuss revealed that a PBE was key to helping him overcome years of addiction to drugs and alcohol.

The interview revealed that Dreyfuss’ first marriage had fallen casualty to his troubled years, as had some great film roles. Over twenty years of addiction recycling had come and gone. The turning point occurred miraculously in a dark hour. Dreyfuss was hospitalized in an effort to detox him yet again from the grasp of drugs and alcohol. Hours passed. As he sobered all alone in the hospital room, there entered a three-year-old girl in a pink dress and shiny black patent leather shoes. She told him, “Daddy, I can’t come to you until you come to me. Please straighten out your life so I can come.” And she was gone.

But the pleading message of her haunting eyes was seared into Dreyfuss’ memory, a constant inspiration to reorder his life so that his daughter might come. With this sacred incentive he maintained sobriety, remarried, and prayed. Within three years a daughter was born to Dreyfuss and his wife — the same girl who had come to his hospital room.

I share these two stories because of the amazing fact that they are from two famous people who have shared these amazing prebirth experiences publicly. Sarah Hinze provides many more stories on her site.  Besides her website, Sarah has also written a number of books: Life before Life, Songs of the Morning Stars, The Castaways, We Lived in Heaven: Spiritual Accounts of Souls Coming to Earth, and Coming from the Light. More information about these inspiring volumes can be found here, here, and here.  I will look at these books in greater detail after I have been able to obtain and review them.

While I simply can’t do Sarah Hinze and her extensive research justice in this one post, I would like to conclude with some of the historical information regarding belief in the premortal existence that she includes on her site, under “PBEs in History“:

Over 800 references to the pre-earth existence of mankind have been identified in Jewish and Christian sources from the time of Christ until the sixth century, A.D. Early Hellenistic (Greek) writings also referred to belief in a pre-earth life. However, after the sixth century A.D., mention of a life before mortality virtually disappears from orthodox Jewish, Christian, and Greek writings (Hamerton-Kelley, R.G., Pre-Existence, Wisdom and the Son of Man in the New Testament, Cambridge University Press, 1973).

A premortal existence was discussed by such well known ancient philosophers as Plato, and Christian writers Origen of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. The writings of the ancient Jewish historian  Josephus and the Jewish theologian Philo (who claimed that everything he wrote agreed with the Pentateuch) show that belief in a premortal life was evident in Judaism until the 5th century, A.D., which in certain quarters held that the soul longs to return to that premortal existence after earth life (Judische Theologie, 212-228).

Until the sixth century A.D., early Christianity taught that we had a pre-earth life. Then the doctrine of a pre-existence was condemned by the council of Constantinople in A.D. 553. However, Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics reports the doctrine of a pre-existence was favored by Origen (the greatest of early church theologians), Justin Martyr, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Peirius, John of Jerusalem, Rufinius, Nemesius, and the Western Church generally until the time of Gregory the Great (article on pre-existence, p. 239).