- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Both your quotes talked about soul either derived from parents or is new created. I have considered both possibilities.
Upvote
0
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.
Juvi wrote:
I think you are asking if the pre-existence of the soul goes against most Christian doctrines.
To answer, I can point out that it is rejected by both Roamn Catholic and many Protestant Christianities.
Catholic:
Tertullian is the founder of the theory of Traducianism, which derives the rational soul ex traduce, i.e. by procreation from the soul of the parent. For Tertullian this was a necessary consequence of Materialism. Later writers found in the doctrine a convenient explanation of the transmission of original sin. St. Jerome says that in his day it was the common theory in the West. Theologians have long abandoned it, however, in favour of Creationism, as it seems to compromise the spirituality of the soul.From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Soul
("Creationism" here means only the immediate creation of the soul at some point after conception.)
Another summary I found is here, though not an authoritative source:
Does the Catholic Church believe in the pre-existence of the soul? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers
Protestant:
The common doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Reformed theologians, has ever been that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God. The arguments generally urged in favour of this view are.......from: Charles Hodge - Anthropology - Part 2 - Chapter 3 - The Origin of the Soul
*********************
(I feel like I'm doing web searches for you that you can well do youself).
So, it is clear that the pre-existence of the soul is generally rejected by most dominant forms of Christianity, with the notable exception of Mormonism, which is both rapidly growing and fully embraces the pre-existence of the soul.
juvi, if you were asking me to explain why most dominant forms of Christianity reject the pre-existence of the soul, then I'll leave that to you reading their own words, as I don't feel like explaining it - like I said, I don't see it as a salvation issue (and I'm not even sure it fits in this forum).
However it goes, I hope you enjoy your investigations.
Have a nice day-
Papias
Daniel 4:16 Let his mind [Lit heart] be changed from that of a manAh, if it were only as simple to understand as to breathe. We could consider Nebuchadnezzer's case a disease of the breath/spirit which deprived him of the proper use of reason. After all, physically, one can lose the use of one's legs or eyes without losing one's body altogether. So one might lose the use of a spiritual faculty, like reason without losing the spirit altogether.
Ah but Dan. 4:34 says:btw, I would not use the word "intelligence" here. Reason, wisdom and understanding are the terms used in the bible and intelligence is often related very loosely to these properties.
If the Holy Spirit is alive and self-aware, so is man's spirit.What question do they raise in your mind?
They are in the same category no doubt, but there is clearly a distinction.A bit more. Basically we are dealing with the fact that the biblical terms hav a wide range of meaning that includes breath, wind and spirit--three things we distinguish by difference words. Obviously not every use of the terms implies the same level of meaning. For example, Elihu uses the word spirit both in Job 32:8 where he says "the breath of the Almighty makes for understanding" and again in Job 34:14-15 where he says "If [God] should take back his spirit to himself and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together and all mortals return to dust."
The first instance would seem to relate to one function (providing understanding) and the second to a different function (keeping the body alive). It is the same word, but the context allows the emphasis to fall on different shades of meaning.
We have similar all-purpose words in English, where context defines the exact meaning intended. Consider for example:
He raised his arm.
He raised an army.
She raised her voice.
She raised a child.
They raised corn and squash.
They raised a million dollars.
No, but I do not view resurrection as everlasting. Like you said we are resurrected to life everlasting or resurrected to everlasting contempt, not resurrected forever.I would see these as the same thing. John speaks of a resurrection to eternal life. You surely don't believe we will die again after being resurrected to new life, do you?
And Scripture also says nothing of the soul being mortal and then becoming immortal. The verse you speak of could be taken as "mortal" meaning in regards to our physical bodies while on earth, since indeed it says in verse 40: "There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another." No where in that chapter does it say the soul is mortal then becomes immortal. That's adding a little to the text. It's a stretch.Because that is what is written in scripture. Scripture says nothing about the soul being designed immortal. It does speak of resurrection and Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, speaks of this mortal being putting on immortality.
So if "body" and "soul" do not mean the same thing, they are different. Soul cannot be a person in the sense of physicality but a spiritual body. The soul comes from God, and if God is without end, it would make sense that the soul of which he infused into first man was also without end.They don't mean the same thing. Body alone is not a living soul. Spirit alone is not a living soul. Soul is a living person, a body animated by the breath/spirit which comes from God and has a mind, an awareness of itself and of God.
Well it says that we cannot "kill" the soul. That only implies immortality if we cannot kill the soul but can the physical body. "Destroy" here in the original Greek is apollumi and means not absolute extermination or extinction but rather loss of well being. God does not exterminate the soul but "destroys" it in the sense of the loss of well being of the unsaved.And Matthew 10:28 does not say the soul cannot be destroyed. It speaks of those who can only destroy the body, but also of one who can destroy both.
So how do you know which view of the soul is correct? Why do you regard the Hebrew over the Greek?No, but your questions assume a Greek philosophic rather than a Hebrew view of the soul. Obviously, the Greek language is imbued with that view. It was probably even current to some extant, in the Hellenized Jewish communities of the first century.
How do you know what was rejected and what was accepted? DO you have any evidence or support of this?So we have to keep in mind that although Jews were expressing themselves in Greek, and by necessity using Greek vocabulary, it doesn't mean they were necessarily buying into the Greek philosophy and rejecting their own rather different view of what a soul is.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
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.And if God breaths trillion of times to each human individuals, then it damages the powerful image of God.
This is an old argument, but I think it is a rather critical one. So I want to try again.
If there were a situation which "requires" God to do the same thing again and again for a long period of time, it would certainly be a pretty bad piece in the perfect Christian theology. We can even create a robot to do repetitive things. Why should the almighty God make Himself work like a robot?
Based on that reasoning, I strongly reject the idea that God keeps creating new soul/spirit for every human beings since Adam to the present. How many times God has to do that?
Clearly, it is not a disease. Something more.
Ah but Dan. 4:34 says:
But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason [Lit knowledge] returned to me...
Knowledge carries the sense of experiencing (i.e. Genesis 4:1, Phil. 3:8-10). Hence, his memories were returned.
This is clearly a sign that he reverted to a state of humanity before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That explains why Adam and Eve had limited understanding but why they were able to communicate with God.
Man's intelligence should not surpass that of a dolphin, elephant, crow, etc. Rather, he was at a very limited point, still able to speak and communicate with his creator, but he did not possess understanding.
For what is the tree of life? Is that not where our breath is derived from?
So what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Is that not where our reason is derived from?
If the Holy Spirit is alive and self-aware, so is man's spirit.
If man does not seek God, then why should God seek man (Acts 17:26-27)?
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be pure,
Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
They are in the same category no doubt, but there is clearly a distinction.
Is the arm dependent on the army or is the army dependent on the arm? Or can it be mutual?
Is the women giving birth always the one who raises the child?
Can that money always remain valuable?
No, but I do not view resurrection as everlasting. Like you said we are resurrected to life everlasting or resurrected to everlasting contempt, not resurrected forever.
And Scripture also says nothing of the soul being mortal and then becoming immortal. The verse you speak of could be taken as "mortal" meaning in regards to our physical bodies while on earth, since indeed it says in verse 40: "There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another." No where in that chapter does it say the soul is mortal then becomes immortal. That's adding a little to the text. It's a stretch.
So if "body" and "soul" do not mean the same thing, they are different. Soul cannot be a person in the sense of physicality but a spiritual body. The soul comes from God, and if God is without end, it would make sense that the soul of which he infused into first man was also without end.
I don't really understand the significance in saying the soul originally created is mortal when later you say it is immortal.
Well it says that we cannot "kill" the soul. That only implies immortality if we cannot kill the soul but can the physical body. "Destroy" here in the original Greek is apollumi and means not absolute extermination or extinction but rather loss of well being. God does not exterminate the soul but "destroys" it in the sense of the loss of well being of the unsaved.
So how do you know which view of the soul is correct? Why do you regard the Hebrew over the Greek?
How do you know what was rejected and what was accepted? DO you have any evidence or support of this?
Being resurrected does not take place for an infinite amount of time. For example when Christ was resurrected, he was indeed resurrected and then began to show himself at which point the act of resurrection was complete. It is life that lasts for an infinite amount of time after being resurrected.I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between being resurrected to life everlasting and being resurrected forever. They sound to me like two ways of saying the same thing.
Ummm not really anything to disagree with here.If a soul is an animated body, then a body resurrected to everlasting life is necessarily animated and is an everlasting soul.
I've seen it translated like this but I don't find there is a difference in meaning a natural and spiritual body rather than body and soul.Actually, the Greek in the passage from 1 Corinthians is quite interesting; clearly it is referring to two bodies connected in some way (to use Paul's analogy as a seed is to the plant that grows from it.) In vs. 44 English bibles generally translate the text as "it is sown in a natural body but raised in a spiritual body"
So are you saying that this verse is not referencing a body of flesh? I'm not sure...Most people take "natural" here to be a mortal body of flesh. But the Greek adjective here that Paul uses is 'psychikos' (while the Greek for "spiritual" is 'pneumatikos') 'psychikos' of course is the adjectival form of 'psyche' which is often translated as 'soul'.
I'm not sure what to make of it honestly.A more literal translation might be that what dies is an ensouled body and what is raised is an enspirited body.
I throw that in FWIW. Make of it what you will.
First, viewing the soul as immortal always does not mean that the body is viewed any less valuable for it is the body that is the temple of God. Second, viewing the soul as immortal always does maintain the soul and body are unified, especially in the view of the origin of the soul that I have been espousing, traducianism.Ah, that is important. First, it emphasizes that the body is just as important and valuable as the spirit and so is antithetical to dualistic views of the human person and of creation in general. The soul is not spirit only; it is body and spirit united.
Body life is complete alien to heavenly life. How can you deny that if indeed you do?The Platonic/neo-Platonic/Gnostic idea was that bodily life was alien to the soul. The body was a prison and salvation was escape from this prison into a life of pure spirituality.
You're going to have to do more than just say that this view oppresses any of those things for it to be true. Even then, I don't oppress animals, woman, or any people.This sort of dualism justifies oppression of the body and of anything seen to be earthly rather than heavenly. (e.g. animals, women, tribal peoples, subject peoples.)
And what Biblical revelation are you speaking of? Look at 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This verse is telling us that the material world should not be regarded over God, so when comparing the material world it doesn't seem that good at all. And again, it is not being implied that a physical body is alien to us.The Biblical revelation of creation is clear that the material world in itself is good and that earthly life, including life in a physical body is not at all alien to us. We are body and spirit united and that is the meaning of 'nephesh' = 'soul'. Salvation is not a matter of freeing an imperishable spirit part of us from our bodies. Salvation applies to the whole person. It is the whole person, body and spirit united that is the soul to be saved.
Immorality does not come by grace faith comes by grace. Salvation to the soul comes from grace. This only seems to further support my point, since it would follow that as such an everlasting effect for the soul to acquire the soul must thus be immortal prior to resurrection. Grace is what is tied into the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.Second, it emphasizes that immortality comes by grace not by nature. It is tied entirely to the incarnation, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus.
Homer? We're talking about the Bible, not the Odyssey or the Iliad. My point is that in the Bible apollumi does not mean extinction, unless otherwise shown in the Bible.Actually, while apollumi often refers to a loss or destruction which is not to death, it can also refer to killing. It was used by Homer frequently to refer to death in battle. So it is not a significant difference in vocabulary.
I see no confliction with the views that makes me think one is right and the other wrong, but perhaps the former didn't have the complete picture. That makes both right with again the former not having the complete idea and the latter expounding it.God revealed himself to the Israelites and took them for his people in a way he did not the Greeks. So the Hebrew view was shaped by their relationship to God. The Greek view was not. So, when they conflict, I tend toward the Hebrew view.
Just like I said in the above.Also, it makes sense to see the New Testament, even if written in Greek, as consistent with that of the Old Testament.
I would say it's foreign to Hebrew thought but not for Paul, since it actually does seem that he thought there is an immaterial soul.For one thing we have the ongoing tradition of Judaism which is derived from the rabbinical views of the first century. Secondly we have the many references to resurrection in the New Testament and explicitly to "resurrection of the body" in the Apostle's Creed. We know that was one of the points by which Christian orthodoxy was distinguished from Christian Gnosticism. The notion of an immaterial soul without a bodily form is simply alien to Hebrew thought, and seems to have been alien to Paul as well.
It can live happily after the body is resurrected to life. The resurrected body is different from the earthly body.And why have a resurrection of the body if the soul is a complete person in itself and can live happily without a body?
Both your quotes talked about soul either derived from parents or is new created. I have considered both possibilities.
But each human is unique; each human soul is unique. So it's not a repetitive job. It is a loving Creator making new one-of-a-kind persons. It must be interesting to God to get acquainted with each new person. I don't see a reason to depict it as a sort of boring drudgery that could just as well be done by a machine.
This is exactly the case according to the view I was talking about with you earlier. If the soul comes from the parents, God does not need to presently create each soul that comes into being. Either way the physical body is not directly, presently created by God, which again is why I assume the same for the soul.OK. But it is still a lot of work. Would my model be better? Each angel is already a unique soul. Let angel become the soul of human, so God does not have to create any more since Day 7.
There is also something that keeps nagging me about your model. It seems unbiblical. Angels are portrayed as in a sense already 'promoted' above that of the human race, and that implies angels and humans co - exist on earth, not the the former becomes the latter.An angel is given a human body and becomes a human. Since the flesh is weak, so the "incarnated" angel will be at risk of sin and might end in the hell. However, if the incarnation is successful and the human accept the Lord on the earth, then the angel will become an eternal human when goes back to the Heaven. To an angel, that is a unimaginable promotion.
It's not a Biblical model for certain. On that basis alone it's insufficient. That is the mistake. You may say it answers those questions but for me your view leaves me with a few other questions unanswered.While my model might not be a necessary model, it seems to be a sufficient model. I still don't see any significant mistake in this model. On the contrary, model is able to give better answers to many hard theological questions. One of them is the predestination problem. Another one may be the destination of souls of aborted children.
This is exactly the case according to the view I was talking about with you earlier. If the soul comes from the parents, God does not need to presently create each soul that comes into being. Either way the physical body is not directly, presently created by God, which again is why I assume the same for the soul.
There is also something that keeps nagging me about your model. It seems unbiblical. Angels are portrayed as in a sense already 'promoted' above that of the human race, and that implies angels and humans co - exist on earth, not the the former becomes the latter.
It's not a Biblical model for certain. On that basis alone it's insufficient. That is the mistake. You may say it answers those questions but for me your view leaves me with a few other questions unanswered.
OK. But it is still a lot of work. Would my model be better? Each angel is already a unique soul. Let angel become the soul of human, so God does not have to create any more since Day 7.
I find this pursuit of a way to relieve God of work to be very curious.
Since God is almighty and it is no strain on God to do work--why do we need to consider saving his labour?
Furthermore, what if God wants to work?
After all, God is the Creator. Even we humans enjoy doing creative work--we often engage in creative activity as recreation because it is pleasurable. So why do you want to take the pleasure of creative activity out of God's hands? Why do you want to leave him in idleness since Day 7?
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.
We enter now a field of speculation. Little is actually written in scripture regarding this.
There most certainly must be a difference between soul and spirit however, tho what that actually is, speculation again.
For example, God is spirit and so is the Holy Spirit, whats the difference?
Also the word soul while often interchangeable with spirit, has different meaning too.
So I think we need to start by distinguishing the difference first.
Soul can be taken to merely mean "living" if you use critical translation of word. Do you mean spirit instead?
I find this pursuit of a way to relieve God of work to be very curious.
Since God is almighty and it is no strain on God to do work--why do we need to consider saving his labour?
Furthermore, what if God wants to work?
After all, God is the Creator. Even we humans enjoy doing creative work--we often engage in creative activity as recreation because it is pleasurable. So why do you want to take the pleasure of creative activity out of God's hands? Why do you want to leave him in idleness since Day 7?
You're missing it entirely.A soul can not be divided. It is a soul now, and it will be a soul when the body died. So, if the soul could be passed from parents to children, then what would happen to the souls of parents? Do they lose "part" of their souls whenever they give birth to a new baby?
I think it is a pretty bad model.
Yes, and it's clear that none of this says that the angels become human souls. There is nothing to even hint at that. Like you said on earth we are lower than the angels which means we cannot possibly be angels 'incarnated.'Angels are created by God during the Days of Creation to serve God. There are "countless" number of them. On Day 6, God mysteriously creates human. And human, who has an earthly body, is temporarily "lower" than angels when the body is alive. But when a human soul goes to the Heaven, then he will become "above" the angels, and angels will serve human too in the eternity. All this understanding comes from the Christian doctrine.
I'm sure you would. Just because you would want to do that doesn't make it any more true that it did actually happen. If you were an angel technically "you" would exist in which the soul really has no origin. The angel has origin but at the point of creation of angels how could the angel be considered the soul? According to your view the soul is pre - existent, and that is not Biblical. If it were, there would be passages stating such. We find no such passages.Consider this structure, if I were an angel, and if I had a chance to become the soul of a human, I might want to do that.
Why is this unBiblical?
I'll restate my reason for not considering your model. According to your model the angel becomes the soul, in which case, in a sense the angel is the soul. If the angel is the soul and exists before it becomes the soul there is no origin to the soul, just the angel which does not know which soul or human it is going to become.No it is not, because it is not explicitly suggested in the Scripture. However, if we asked the question about origin of soul/spirit, we want to give the best answer we can think of. So, why not consider my model?
It may give us hints but not the complete idea. And I believe God leaves us wonder, not knowing everything.One thing the Christianity impresses me is that it gives answers to all origin questions. God "wants" us to know everything about the Heaven, regardless that we are still on the earth now. And the Scripture does give us enough hints to all possible questions.
And what answer is that?I like to hear those unanswered questions you might have (Thank you in advance). I thought about the memory problem we talked about a few days ago, and I do find a version of answer to that.
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?