• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured "... breathed into his nostrils THE BREATH OF LIFE..."

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Douglas Hendrickson, Apr 21, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Genesis 2:7 God life in "man."

    Note that Adam (man) was (is) FIRST FORMED,

    first has nostrils, and THEN becomes a living soul.

    THE BREATH OF LIFE, meaning being a living "MAN" (human being) for God,
    COMES ONLY AT BIRTH.

    Also, only at birth is there a new being, a new animal being, a new human being. There is a new member of an animal species, including new human animal species MEMBER, only at birth. A new being, a new human being.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,901
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Adam wasn't born. He was formed in maturity, like all things.
     
  3. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Whether Adam was born is irrelevant to what I am saying.
    Point is he was not a living SOUL (person) until he had the breath of life - i.e., was breathing.
    There had to be the breath of life and nostrils through which that breath was breathed for there to be an alive human being, and that is still so today.
    I guess we have breathing tubes also today, but really there must be the blood replenished by oxygen from the air (breathing) for there to be a human being life. When the breathing ends the life of the person is over.
     
  4. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,901
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    The gift of God is eternal life.
     
  5. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +36,777
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hi Douglas, an unborn baby doesn't receive oxygen in the same way someone living outside the womb does because an unborn baby's lungs are filled with amniotic fluid. But far from being anything like the LIFELESS body that God formed from the mud to put Adam's soul in, a baby in his/her mother's womb is ALIVE, receiving both the oxygen and the nutrients that he/she needs to remain alive through their umbilical chord.

    Yours and His,
    David

    "He will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink
    no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy
    Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb"

    Luke 1:15
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2016
  6. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +4,713
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    So if a baby is born not breathing, (all are) it is not human until
    the first breath? Would than not make it the perfect time to change
    ones mind about keeping it alive?
     
  7. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +4,713
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    People stop breathing for many reasons. I knew a kid in school
    with a respirator on his electric wheelchair. Babies don't
    beath at birth many times.
     
  8. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    If it never breathed, it would probably be considered BORN DEAD. That is, never had a human being life.
     
  9. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Not what my Bible says. FROM the womb not IN the womb. Lets look up the Greek for Luke 1:15.

    The bit about Adam's body having no life before God breathed in it the breath that made it a living soul, that is your construction. BTW, rats are alive too - that does not make them virtuous.
     
  10. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,901
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Let's remember that Adam was formed from dust, not born from a mother.
     
  11. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Like I already said, that Adam was not born is irrelevant. (Unless you can show it is somehow relevant.) I never claimed that Adam was not formed from dust - the flesh that was him at some point became living flesh, and that would seem to have been when God breathed into his nostrils.

    Point is, flesh that is alive is not necessarily a living soul, and the breath given from God means Adam then was a living soul.
    Tumors that are human flesh and alive are NOT living persons (souls).

    I imagine we can say God gives the breath of life to every person who is living soul.
    But that is a different question than that breath is required for there to be a living person (soul).
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2016
  12. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Do you mean to be claiming that ALL life is eternal life?
    It does not say "the gift of life is eternal life."

    ETERNAL life is not relevant to the first birth, when there is first a new human being. Eternal life comes from being BORN OF GOD, being "born again," i.e. accepting Christ, and comes (hopefully!) later. Note the Christian EMPHASIS ON BIRTH. Beginnings!
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2016
  13. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,901
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Adam was dirt until God finished his creation. He didn't become flesh until then. Methinks this is cover for a pro-abortion argument; babies are like tumors until they take their first breath so it's okay to kill them. I've heard it before in that context.
     
  14. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,901
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Actually, I was referencing Romans 6:23.
     
  15. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +36,777
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hi again Douglas, a child in his/her mother's womb is not a "tumor", he/she is a person. Even our secular laws make this clear because, if an Unborn Member of the Species Homo Sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another is killed, it is Aggravated Murder, Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, or Negligent Homicide. State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws declare it murder to kill an embryo or fetus because we know it's a human child that's being carried in the womb (i.e. Laci and Connor's Law)

    Of course, the new twist to all of this (since Roe) is that these laws do not apply to legally induced abortions. But the fact that SCOTUS decreed abortions permissible/legal in our country does not change the basic facts concerning the humanness and personhood of the unborn child.

    Yours and His,
    David
     
  16. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +36,777
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Adam became a living soul when he was, "created", just like we do now when we are, "begotten" :preach:

    And again, the fact that unborn children do not obtain oxygen by "breathing" it into their lungs doesn't mean that they don't utilize oxygen in the same manner that they will once they're outside of their mother's womb.

    As Melody Green recently stated:

    It is a horrible thing to consider, of course, but if an unborn baby had a "tumor" and that baby died in utero, the tumor that was inside him/her would die as well, even though the unborn baby's mother lived on. An unborn child is a separate LIVING person within another person. As such it is NOTHING AT ALL like a "tumor" which may have living "cells", but is hardly a living being.

    Yours and His,
    David
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2016
  17. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Hi David, good of you to begin with a greeting!
    What you call "the basic facts" are just your mistaken assumption, imho; your calling the fetus an 'unborn baby" and "person" does not make it so. Legally it has pretty much always been that the fetus is NOT a person, and SCOTUS reaffirmed and reinforced that fact.
    That some states have (fairly recently I believe) erected laws to try to turn any fatal harm done to a fetus into some sort of "homocide" only means "pro-life" has been able to convince some legislators to distort reality with such suggestions of personhood, with laws aimed at ultimately outlawing abortion.

    I certainly never said a fetus is a tumor though I tried to point out that if someone thinks it is a great virtue that the fetus has life, and is human cells, the same applies to the cancer (which might be in the same place, i.e. the womb).
    Note I refuse to use the FALSE TERMINOLOGY "unborn child," and suggest if you are not trying to bias the argument and merely assume the conclusion by a linguistic fiat, you would also avoid such unproven terminology.
    Thanks for your response! Sincerely in Christ, Douglas
     
  18. mmksparbud

    mmksparbud Well-Known Member

    +3,890
    United States
    SDA
    Widowed
    US-Others
    Are you interested in legal definitions, or in biblical concepts??
     
  19. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Biblical concepts and biological facts - legal "understandings" can be mistaken about reality, the way things are.
     
  20. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +36,777
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hi Douglas, I was referring specifically to "us" (meaning our secular national & state governments) not "me" (in this case) as the users of official/legal terminology such as, "an Unborn Member of the Species Homo Sapiens" or "unborn child", in the writing of our laws concerning unborn children. So you may not like it personally and you may wish to call it, "false terminology", but this is the terminology that's used, even by our secular government.

    Fetal Homicide Laws have been in place (at least) since the Torah was written, and in our country, they were certainly in place before SCOTUS' Roe v Wade decision. The addition of Roe, in fact, required that a caveat (of sorts) be added to our existing laws to ensure that the death of an unborn child due to an elective abortion would no longer be considered a crime.

    Biblically, legally, and scientifically, we KNOW that when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying an unborn human child, not simply a blob of cells (as I mentioned in my last post, if a baby dies in utero, so do all of his/her cells, even though all the cells of the "mother's body" continue to live on).

    To say that an "unborn child" is now something "less" because SCOTUS gave the women of this country the right to decide whether their unborn baby lives or dies (for any reason they see fit BTW, which in 99+% of the 58,000,000 abortions that have been performed since Roe, is simply for the sake of the mother's "convenience") is simply not true. Every time a successful abortion occurs, a unborn human child is killed :preach:

    If those who support abortion want to use different terminology or attempt to believe something else to sooth their consciences, I can certainly understand that. Nevertheless, the truth about abortion, IOW, that it always involves the killing of a human child, does not change (no matter how badly some people wish it would :().

    Yours and His,
    David
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...