Origin of human soul

Mikecpking · Oct 4, 2011

All living creatures including humans are souls. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immaterial essence called a soul. Spirit is literally the breath of God (Job 24:3, Gen 2:7, Ecclesiates 12:7 and is also not an immaterial essence of a person.

gluadys · Oct 4, 2011

Mikecpking said:
All living creatures including humans are souls. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immaterial essence called a soul. Spirit is literally the breath of God (Job 24:3, Gen 2:7, Ecclesiates 12:7 and is also not an immaterial essence of a person.

Jig · Oct 4, 2011

Mikecpking said:
All living creatures including humans are souls. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immaterial essence called a soul. Spirit is literally the breath of God (Job 24:3, Gen 2:7, Ecclesiates 12:7 and is also not an immaterial essence of a person.

When the rich man went to Hades and when Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom after death, what were they? Surely they weren't in their physical bodies - as these were decomposing on Earth. (Luke 16:19-31)

Jig · Oct 4, 2011

sfs said:
My reaction to talk about either spirits or souls reflects my scientific bent: I always want to ask, "What does it do?"

Though this is not a direct response to your question, I think it can help shed light on the issue.

Is our "mind" purely physical?

Descartes was once quoted saying, "Minds may be in time, but they are not in space. They do not have extension (length, height, breadth, or physical depth) or mass. They have no three-dimensional spread or solidity. They essentially think. That is their nature. And this is a very different sort of reality from any physical object."

elopez · Oct 4, 2011

shernren said:
But bodies have "detachable parts", so to speak, whose express purpose is the formation of a new, distinct body; while souls are normally thought of as simple, indivisible substances, so it is hard to see how two souls could "interact" to form a new soul - a process which would be quite unlike the typical interactions involving souls which we see everyday.

It's not the two souls that form the one. It is the two physical bodies that contains souls that creates the new physical body and soul. You're almost making it sound like the two souls of the parents itself have intercourse, when traducianism doesn't claim that at all.

shernren said:
I was a bit too terse - I meant to say that I tend to be a creationist when it comes to souls, because it isn't clear what souls would do before having a body (i.e. preformationism / pre-existence of the soul) or how two souls can join into one (i.e. traducianism). I was referring to both alternative views, not just the latter.

Gotcha. I agree with you on the former, especially in regards to the OP as that is near what is implied.

juvenissun · Oct 4, 2011

Papias said:
juvi-

Your pre-existence proposal - isn't that the Mormon position?

Papias

I don't know. It is my idea.

juvenissun · Oct 4, 2011

gluadys said:
It does? I don't know why you come to this conclusion. One could just as well say it exalts the powerful image of God.

Of course it is. Each has a unique genome. Each is composed physically of different molecules. Each has a different uterine environment which will affect its development. Lots of reasons for each to be unique physically.

OK, accepted. Thanks.

juvenissun · Oct 4, 2011

sfs said:
My reaction to talk about either spirits or souls reflects my scientific bent: I always want to ask, "What does it do?"

It makes you to be a unique person now, and a unique spirit in the future.

juvenissun · Oct 4, 2011

shernren said:
But bodies have "detachable parts", so to speak, whose express purpose is the formation of a new, distinct body; while souls are normally thought of as simple, indivisible substances, so it is hard to see how two souls could "interact" to form a new soul - a process which would be quite unlike the typical interactions involving souls which we see everyday.

I was a bit too terse - I meant to say that I tend to be a creationist when it comes to souls, because it isn't clear what souls would do before having a body (i.e. preformationism / pre-existence of the soul) or how two souls can join into one (i.e. traducianism). I was referring to both alternative views, not just the latter.

How about my angel model?

juvenissun · Oct 4, 2011

elopez said:
It's not the two souls that form the one. It is the two physical bodies that contains souls that creates the new physical body and soul. You're almost making it sound like the two souls of the parents itself have intercourse, when traducianism doesn't claim that at all.

Gotcha. I agree with you on the former, especially in regards to the OP as that is near what is implied.

I don't like this idea. My soul is me and My wife's soul is she. We can not average our souls and make a "blank" soul for our child. We do know that there are various versions of reincarnation that recycles souls.

In my idea, when an angel becomes a soul of a new human, it is indeed a "blank" human soul. As a consequence, the new soul in the new human may not recognize God through out his life time. So, that angel might end up in the hell forever.

Jpark · Oct 4, 2011

Mikecpking said:
All living creatures including humans are souls. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immaterial essence called a soul. Spirit is literally the breath of God (Job 24:3, Gen 2:7, Ecclesiates 12:7 and is also not an immaterial essence of a person.

Job 32:7-9, Dan. 4:33-34

Explain that please.

Spirit is not a component of the breath and breath is not a component of the spirit.

Man is comprised of

2 immaterial:

soul
spirit

2 material:

breath (air)
body

The soul can die (Eccl. 9:6) but the spirit has a mind of it's own (Matt. 26:41, 1 Cor. 2:11) and is immortal; this immortality is derived from God and is the reason why God expresses interest in mortals (Job 15:14) and is the reason why God requires things from man.

Man was created as a body imbued with life and sentience, but he was lacking understanding which is why he was able to be deceived and ate of the tree because he did not understand what the consequences would be but after eating, he acquired understanding, a spirit, and responsibility.

Also consider Isaiah 57:16.

elopez · Oct 4, 2011

juvenissun said:
I don't like this idea. My soul is me and My wife's soul is she. We can not average our souls and make a "blank" soul for our child. We do know that there are various versions of reincarnation that recycles souls.

And as I said earlier I don't really favor yours either. You say you cannot average one soul with your wife but you can sure average another human being. I think my biggest point is that humans are not created in the same fashion God created Adam and Eve. Thus, if we assume God directly gave our first parents a soul to begin with, and humans are no longer created in the same way as our first parents, then God does not create souls in the same way He did with Adam and Eve.

Mainly this would apply to creationism but since your view is close to it in that God still gives a soul to a human though through an angel, it applies there too.

shernren said:
In my idea, when an angel becomes a soul of a new human, it is indeed a "blank" human soul. As a consequence, the new soul in the new human may not recognize God through out his life time. So, that angel might end up in the hell forever.

The soul would not recognize God in this life yet he would have being an angel that is, is the previous life. This only begs the question if the new 'blank' soul has any recollection of being an angel, and if so, how is it considered a new soul? You must be saying something like the transition from angel to soul somehow erases the angel's memory? This view is way too speculative for me to consider.

juvenissun · Oct 5, 2011

elopez said:
And as I said earlier I don't really favor yours either. You say you cannot average one soul with your wife but you can sure average another human being. I think my biggest point is that humans are not created in the same fashion God created Adam and Eve. Thus, if we assume God directly gave our first parents a soul to begin with, and humans are no longer created in the same way as our first parents, then God does not create souls in the same way He did with Adam and Eve.

Mainly this would apply to creationism but since your view is close to it in that God still gives a soul to a human though through an angel, it applies there too.

The soul would not recognize God in this life yet he would have being an angel that is, is the previous life. This only begs the question if the new 'blank' soul has any recollection of being an angel, and if so, how is it considered a new soul? You must be saying something like the transition from angel to soul somehow erases the angel's memory? This view is way too speculative for me to consider.

No. There is no need to wipe out the memory of the original angel. Angel's thought and human's thought could be parallel and not interfere with each other. On the other hand, each human is (physically) different at the beginning because each angel is different.

I admit this is a problem I don't have enough consideration on it. I suggested the role of angel because I don't have any better choice. If God ceased His creation and every human's soul (spirit) is a brand new one, then where does the soul come from?

juvenissun · Oct 6, 2011

Jpark said:
Job 32:7-9, Dan. 4:33-34

Explain that please.

Spirit is not a component of the breath and breath is not a component of the spirit.

Man is comprised of

2 immaterial:

soul
spirit

2 material:

breath (air)
body

The soul can die (Eccl. 9:6) but the spirit has a mind of it's own (Matt. 26:41, 1 Cor. 2:11) and is immortal; this immortality is derived from God and is the reason why God expresses interest in mortals (Job 15:14) and is the reason why God requires things from man.

Man was created as a body imbued with life and sentience, but he was lacking understanding which is why he was able to be deceived and ate of the tree because he did not understand what the consequences would be but after eating, he acquired understanding, a spirit, and responsibility.

Also consider Isaiah 57:16.

My thread is exploring HOW and WHEN does that happen.

juvenissun · Oct 6, 2011

Another key which shaped my idea is on the purpose of human creation. Why would God want to create human if He already has angels? Consider that both angel and human are given free will by God. Why would God love human more than angel?

Papias · Oct 6, 2011

juvi wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

juvi-

Your pre-existence proposal - isn't that the Mormon position?

Papias

Click to expand...

I don't know. It is my idea.

OK. The pre-existence of the soul goes against most Christian doctrines, but to each his own, being that souls can't be objectively tested by evidence.

Papias

gluadys · Oct 6, 2011

Jpark said:
Job 32:7-9, Dan. 4:33-34

Explain that please.

The passage in Job is in poetic form which, in Hebrew, often takes the form of parallelism. In this construction the same thought is often restated in a slightly different form.

"But truly it is the ruach in a mortal,
the n'shamahof the Almighty, that makes for understanding."

In the KJV, n'shamah is translated here as "inspiration" which comes from the Latin and literally means "in-breathing, in-spiriting". In 17 other occurrences the KJV translates it as "breath", sometimes as the breath of man, sometimes as the breath of God.

The same term is used in Gen. 2:7: "... and God breathed into his nostrils the n'shamah of life ..."

ruach also means, inter alia, "breath" "wind" "spirit"

In this poetic parallelism, ruach and n'shamah are intended to be synonyms, as in another context "scarlet" and "crimson" are so used.

I don't know what you see in Daniel 4:33-34 that is problematical.

Spirit is not a component of the breath and breath is not a component of the spirit.

Hebrew does not make this distinction. It does not compartmentalize either breath or spirit, but simply uses the same words for both. Given that our thinking is shaped by our language, I would presume ancient Hebrews identified them as pretty much the same thing.

Also consider Isaiah 57:16.

Looks like the same parallelism:

"...for then the ruach would grow faint before me,
even the n'shamah that I have made.

elopez · Oct 6, 2011

juvenissun said:
No. There is no need to wipe out the memory of the original angel. Angel's thought and human's thought could be parallel and not interfere with each other. On the other hand, each human is (physically) different at the beginning because each angel is different.

So if the angel still has it's memory when transformed into human, would you say that the soul and thus the human of which it inhibits has prior knowledge as being an angel?

juvenissun said:
I admit this is a problem I don't have enough consideration on it. I suggested the role of angel because I don't have any better choice. If God ceased His creation and every human's soul (spirit) is a brand new one, then where does the soul come from?

The soul comes from our parents just as our physical body does. As the soul and body are united and since it is through conception that we 'obtain' a physical body, so it must be that we 'obtain' a soul through conception.

juvenissun · Oct 6, 2011

Papias said:
juvi wrote:

OK. The pre-existence of the soul goes against most Christian doctrines, but to each his own, being that souls can't be objectively tested by evidence.

Papias

How is so?

juvenissun · Oct 6, 2011

elopez said:
So if the angel still has it's memory when transformed into human, would you say that the soul and thus the human of which it inhibits has prior knowledge as being an angel?

The soul comes from our parents just as our physical body does. As the soul and body are united and since it is through conception that we 'obtain' a physical body, so it must be that we 'obtain' a soul through conception.

I suspect that you distinguish soul from spirit here. If that is the case, then I don't mean the soul, but the spirit. I guess the soul as you see it would disappeared with the body died. Right? Even that were the case, I don't accept that the soul comes from parents. And I wonder what is the reason for that suggestion. Why should the soul come from parents?

The memory (history) of the angel is a good one. I don't know what to say and it is a problem I need to solve.

Origin of human soul

Senior Member

Legend

Christ Follower

Christ Follower

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

Legend

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads