Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
My reaction to talk about either spirits or souls reflects my scientific bent: I always want to ask, "What does it do?"
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.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.
Gotcha. I agree with you on the former, especially in regards to the OP as that is near what is implied.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.
juvi-
Your pre-existence proposal - isn't that the Mormon position?
Papias
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.
My reaction to talk about either spirits or souls reflects my scientific bent: I always want to ask, "What does it do?"
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.
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.
Job 32:7-9, Dan. 4:33-34All 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Also consider Isaiah 57:16.
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?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.
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 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?
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?