Origin of human soul

[juvenissun]

I like to share this idea. Criticism is mostly welcome.

Where does the soul (or spirit? Let's not argue about that) come from for every human being? I don't think it is a good argument that God creates every new souls when a baby is conceived since Adam and Eve, and continuously do so into the future. God is not a robot and He can certainly do this in a much better way.

God finished His creation in Gen 1. This includes countless angels and, of course, Adam and Eve, but not Cain and Abel. If so, where does the soul come from for later people?

My idea is that our souls came from angels. Each one of us was an angel. Since Adam and Eve, God allows angel (whoever wants to) to become the soul of a human. This is NOT reincarnation. It is more like God becomes Jesus. It could only happen once.

Think it this way: If you were an angel and God permits you to become the soul of a human, would you like to take the opportunity? What is the advantage? What is the risk? Of course, God gives you, an angel, a free will and you can decide it 100% on yourself. May be, as I can imagine, that you have only one chance to do that.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't think the bible ever mentions that humans were once angels.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think the bible ever mentions that humans were once angels.

Of course not. But my idea is derived from the understanding of angel, human, creation and revelation. It is a summarized answer to the question.

Nevertheless, we have two cases in the Bible that are pretty close: One is the God-Jesus relationship, which demonstrates that the idea is at least, possible. The other one is the description of Jeremiah by God (Jer 1:5). How would God know Jeremiah BEFORE he is conceived? What was the "being" God knows?

According to my scheme, the angel who became Jeremiah is deeply blessed. He took no risk because his action (decision) was blessed by God before it happened. I am not sure who was that lucky angel. But whoever he was, that angle is completely gone forever. Now he is called Jeremiah in the Heaven.

And, I forgot, there is a third one. It is described in Gen 6:2-4.

 

[mark kennedy]

The creation of the human soul is ex nihilo, it's a creation, 'from nothing', something only God can do. As a Creationist I have no problem with this conceptually even though it does leave the intellect hanging. Perhaps some of our evolutionist brethren have some thoughts on what may have been the pre-existing substance the 'soul' is formed from. As for me, before the soul (spirit) is created there is nothing.

By the way, with regards to the creation of Adam only the soul is regarded as ex nihilo, in the language of Genesis.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer. 1:5)​

I haven't had time to study this out but what I get from the passage is God knew Jeremiah before he was even conceived. It reminds me a little of Samson, before he was born he was going to be a Judge in Israel, no doubt because of his godly parents. The commentaries I found seem to see it as something a lot like the realization in this verse:

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace...(Gal. 1:15)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Juvie, you are thinking of the theory of the pre-existence of souls. Namely that all the souls of humanity were or are created at some time prior to the conception of their bodies, and are fused with their bodies at the quickening of the fetus into a human being - conception or forty days after or whatever your preferred time period may be.

The other two theories are firstly creationism (not the anti-evolutionist one), which holds that each soul is created de novo, ex nihilo, in vivo - as new, from nothing prior, at the quickening (that I mentioned earlier), immediately inside the body of the forming child.

Second is traducianism, which holds that each soul is formed from the souls of the parents, just as each body begins by being formed from the bodies of the parents.

To me the most common and intuitive "soulless" position is some form of emergent materialism: there is such a thing as a soul, but explicable as a pattern of matter. So, for example, suppose you install Microsoft Word on your computer. You could pull out your hard drive and point to this and that and this dot and say "that's Microsoft Word" - but when you use it, you treat it not as a collection of magnetized dots but as a word processor, able to do things that you would find difficult or cumbersome to explain with the science of magnetized dots. Similarly, in the emergent conception of souls, the "soul" is the pattern of a person's consciousness in his or her neurons - an entirely natural pattern of firing electrical and chemical impulses, and yet giving rise to an entity which is impossible to treat as simply an aggregate of firing impulses.

I personally consider myself a creationist (in the matter of souls), simply because it is not clear to me either what souls would do without a body or how two souls could give rise to a new one.

But it is quite relevant to the question of original sin: if each soul is created anew by God, how is original sin passed down from the parents to the newly created soul? Surely it would be no trouble for God to create the new soul of a child to be free from the influence of original sin, and indeed it would be desirable to Him. This raises only three possibilities:

1. God actively wills that the newly created soul of the child be tainted with sin on account of their parents' sinfulness, though He could have chosen for it not to be so. I don't think that fits with the character of God.

2. The taint of original sin is passed on not through the soul but through the body. But since our bodies are wholly biological, that implies that there is a biological solution to original sin, which in theory could be implemented by purely human effort after enough scientific advancement.

3. The taint of original sin is passed on neither through soul nor through body, in which case it is not necessarily passed down by descent ... which means we can all be victims of original sin without being descended from Adam.

 

[Siyha]

I always thought the human soul had its origin in platonic dualism/gnosticism and that the Bible didn't actually teach we have immaterial ghosts that detach from our bodies and float away after we die.

 

[gluadys]

I always thought the human soul had its origin in platonic dualism/gnosticism and that the Bible didn't actually teach we have immaterial ghosts that detach from our bodies and float away after we die.

Yes, that is my understanding too.

As I see it, a person does not have a soul. A person is a soul. And by that I mean that a person is a body animated--made alive--by spirit. The spirit is not the soul. The whole person, body and spirit is the soul.

 

[elopez]

My idea is that our souls came from angels. Each one of us was an angel. Since Adam and Eve, God allows angel (whoever wants to) to become the soul of a human. This is NOT reincarnation. It is more like God becomes Jesus. It could only happen once.

Essentially then our soul was created by God since God created angels and you say our souls were once angels. That also implies that when God created all the angels He would have had to created enough angels that would take place for every human born on earth. I dunno. I'm just not sold on the idea. I mean God became Jesus because Jesus was God even after he became man. We don't remain what we were, according to you, so it's not as if it is the same.

 

[elopez]

I personally consider myself a creationist (in the matter of souls), simply because it is not clear to me either what souls would do without a body or how two souls could give rise to a new one.

I think of it like this. You would think that two bodies can give rise to a new body, right? And body and soul are united yet distinct, right? So if the body is related to the soul and two bodies give rise to a new body, is not not that far fetched that we would get one soul from two.

Also, how does traducianism say the soul would be without body before conception? I'm not sure I understand your comment there.

 

[Jig]

Yes, that is my understanding too.

As I see it, a person does not have a soul. A person is a soul. And by that I mean that a person is a body animated--made alive--by spirit. The spirit is not the soul. The whole person, body and spirit is the soul.

I think we my be on the same page, but let me ask you this first: Where does this spirit come from? Is this created/implanted by God when a child is conceived? What is a spirit?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, that is my understanding too.

As I see it, a person does not have a soul. A person is a soul. And by that I mean that a person is a body animated--made alive--by spirit. The spirit is not the soul. The whole person, body and spirit is the soul.

OK, the spirit. I meant the spirit in my OP. So, like Jig asked, what the origin of the spirit?

P.S. Thanks to everyone's input. I love you all. What you said are exciting. I will reply after I carefully think about it.

 

[artybloke]

what is the origin of the spirit?

Corrected for grammar..

God, of course, like everything else.

 

[gluadys]

I think we my be on the same page, but let me ask you this first: Where does this spirit come from? Is this created/implanted by God when a child is conceived? What is a spirit?

From God.

See Gen. 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 11:7

Spirit=breath (same word in Hebrew)

It is the breath of life, of God.

I don't know if it is created or just comes from God. I don't know when it unites with the body except that it does so before birth, possibly as early as conception.

 

[juvenissun]

To say that spirit of human comes from God is trying to avoid the question in the OP. We all agreed on that. And we all agreed that the nature of creation is "out of nothing". The key question is: how frequent does God do it? Once? or trillions of times?

The question in the OP is not answered if we think God only breaths once to human. And if God breaths trillion of times to each human individuals, then it damages the powerful image of God. Because of this dilemma, I came up the idea described in the OP. Provided that a few other verses in the Scripture do support the idea.

An extended thought touches what's said by Shernren. Each of us has a unique soul/spirit. If so, why is it unique? Is our spirit unique to begin with? or it became unique when it joined the flesh? I don't think each fetus or each fertilized egg is unique physically. I would like to think the spirit of us is unique to start with.

 

[juvenissun]

From God.

See Gen. 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 11:7

Spirit=breath (same word in Hebrew)

It is the breath of life, of God.

I don't know if it is created or just comes from God. I don't know when it unites with the body except that it does so before birth, possibly as early as conception.

Did you misquote? I don't see the relevance of Ecc 11:7.

 

[Papias]

juvi-

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

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Did you misquote? I don't see the relevance of Ecc 11:7.

Yes, sorry, that should have been Ecc. 12:7

 

[gluadys]

And if God breaths trillion of times to each human individuals, then it damages the powerful image of God.

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.

I don't think each fetus or each fertilized egg is unique physically.

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.

 

[shernren]

I think of it like this. You would think that two bodies can give rise to a new body, right? And body and soul are united yet distinct, right? So if the body is related to the soul and two bodies give rise to a new body, is not not that far fetched that we would get one soul from two.

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.

Also, how does traducianism say the soul would be without body before conception? I'm not sure I understand your comment there.

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.

 

[sfs]

Spirit=breath (same word in Hebrew)

It is the breath of life, of God.

I don't know if it is created or just comes from God. I don't know when it unites with the body except that it does so before birth, possibly as early as conception.

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