Origin of human soul

[elopez]

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?

To me soul and spirit are synonymous. The soul is the immortal aspect of man. That which God breathed into us, the spirit. When biological death occurs the immortal soul 'leaves' the physical body, it does not disappear.

The reason for the soul coming from the parents is again the soul and physical body are unified, and the physical body comes from the parents. If that's the case it makes sense to say the soul comes from the 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.

A problem indeed, which is obviously why I question the view.

 

[artybloke]

How can you talk about the origin of anything without first defining it, or at least detecting its presence? Unless you've got a 'spirit-meter' that can detect this and find out what it's made of, it's a metaphysical concept that science cannout touch.

So what is spirit then? And if it is completely immaterial and not detectable, how do we know it's even there never mind where it's from?

 

[Mikecpking]

To me soul and spirit are synonymous. The soul is the immortal aspect of man. That which God breathed into us, the spirit. When biological death occurs the immortal soul 'leaves' the physical body, it does not disappear.

The reason for the soul coming from the parents is again the soul and physical body are unified, and the physical body comes from the parents. If that's the case it makes sense to say the soul comes from the parents.


A problem indeed, which is obviously why I question the view.

Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immortal soul. (mat 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4, Numbers 23:10, Judges 16:30)

The biblical soul is the whole man,(gen 2:7) or the life (force) bound up within the body and transported by blood.

DT 12:23
Lev 17:11

 

[Greg1234]

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

Physical science and its instrumentation never had an authority on these matters so I see no reason why you would choose to highlight their incompetence.

 

[Greg1234]

How can you talk about the origin of anything without first defining it, or at least detecting its presence? Unless you've got a 'spirit-meter' that can detect this and find out what it's made of, it's a metaphysical concept that science cannout touch.

"Unless you've got a 'spirit-meter' that can detect this and find out what it's made of, it's a metaphysical concept that [instruments of physical] science cannout touch."

That's not a problem.

So what is spirit then?

The Spirit is adequately defined in the bible. But it is an immortal, omnipresent, sentient force. It is the quintessence of reality which, through the aforementioned properties, is endowed with certain capabilities enabling it to transcend the limitations of matter which Darwinists can't define. Can you define matter? Its properties and capabilities?

And if it is completely immaterial and not detectable, how do we know it's even there never mind where it's from?

"And if it is completely immaterial and not detectable,[by the instrumentation of physical science] how do we know it's even there never mind where it's from"

The same reason we don't look for DNA with a seismograph and still know its there.

 

[juvenissun]

How can you talk about the origin of anything without first defining it, or at least detecting its presence? Unless you've got a 'spirit-meter' that can detect this and find out what it's made of, it's a metaphysical concept that science cannout touch.

So what is spirit then? And if it is completely immaterial and not detectable, how do we know it's even there never mind where it's from?

I assume the discussion at the very beginning recognizes the existence of soul/spirit.

If you believe there is a life after life, then the life after life is the soul/spirit we are talking about. If you don't believe that, then this thread would have nothing to do with you.

 

[juvenissun]

To me soul and spirit are synonymous. The soul is the immortal aspect of man. That which God breathed into us, the spirit. When biological death occurs the immortal soul 'leaves' the physical body, it does not disappear.

The reason for the soul coming from the parents is again the soul and physical body are unified, and the physical body comes from the parents. If that's the case it makes sense to say the soul comes from the parents.


A problem indeed, which is obviously why I question the view.

You bound the soul and the flesh together during the birth. But do you recognize the separation of them after the death? I don't see your "parents' soul --> children's soul" idea is very consistent. May be you can elaborate the mechanism a little bit more?

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

How is so? (in response to: The pre-existence of the soul goes against most Christian doctrines.)

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

 

[elopez]

Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an immortal soul. (mat 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4, Numbers 23:10, Judges 16:30)

The biblical soul is the whole man,(gen 2:7) or the life (force) bound up within the body and transported by blood.

DT 12:23
Lev 17:11

Jesus said himself in Matthew 25:46 that the righteous will go into eternal life. If life is everlasting, a soul must be able to endure this experience without end. The soul would have to be immortal.

You know what's interesting about Matthew 10:28 is that there is a different word for "body" then there is for "soul." The orignal Greek for "body" is soma and is "the body as a whole, the instrument of life." The original Greek for "soul" is psuche and is indeed one sense regarded as a moral being that is designed for everlasting life. I'm sure you'll disagree with that but consider this: If there are two separate words for "body" and "soul," and each means the same (as i suspect you would say?) then why does it say that we cannot harm our soul yet can harm our body?

 

[elopez]

You bound the soul and the flesh together during the birth. But do you recognize the separation of them after the death? I don't see your "parents' soul --> children's soul" idea is very consistent. May be you can elaborate the mechanism a little bit more?

Of course there is separation after death, but that doesn't mean that while living the soul and body were not in unity. They were. Instead of me elaborating a bit more why don't you elaborate on what you find inconsistent?

 

[Mikecpking]

Jesus said himself in Matthew 25:46 that the righteous will go into eternal life. If life is everlasting, a soul must be able to endure this experience without end. The soul would have to be immortal.

Its not called a soul. The eternal life for the believer is the resurrection. Inbetween, the dead are 'rephaim' in sheol until the last day (Psalm 88:10, Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29, 1 Cor 15.) You will not find 'immortal' attributed to 'soul' in the bible anywhere!

You know what's interesting about Matthew 10:28 is that there is a different word for "body" then there is for "soul." The orignal Greek for "body" is soma and is "the body as a whole, the instrument of life." The original Greek for "soul" is psuche and is indeed one sense regarded as a moral being that is designed for everlasting life. I'm sure you'll disagree with that but consider this: If there are two separate words for "body" and "soul," and each means the same (as i suspect you would say?) then why does it say that we cannot harm our soul yet can harm our body?

'Psuche' means 'life' and this is the true meaning of 'soul'. God can destroy it and consequently cannot be immortal.

Did you check the scriptures I gave you?

Have a nice weeekend.

 

[elopez]

Its not called a soul. The eternal life for the believer is the resurrection. Inbetween, the dead are 'rephaim' in sheol until the last day (Psalm 88:10, Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29, 1 Cor 15.) You will not find 'immortal' attributed to 'soul' in the bible anywhere!

Does the resurrection have no end? Eternal life means life without end. Life everlasting. What we find in the Bible is the description of eternal life, a time spent with God without end. If we are in God's presence forever, then our soul must be immortal.

'Psuche' means 'life' and this is the true meaning of 'soul'. God can destroy it and consequently cannot be immortal.

Did you check the scriptures I gave you?

Have a nice weeekend.

You didn't answer my question, and I am already aware of the verses you gave me which is why I asked a question in regards to the very first verse you gave me.

Yup. You too.

 

[Mikecpking]

Does the resurrection have no end? Eternal life means life without end. Life everlasting. What we find in the Bible is the description of eternal life, a time spent with God without end. If we are in God's presence forever, then our soul must be immortal.

Eternal life means after we die, we will be resurrected in a new incorruptable body to be with God on the new earth forever. We will have a physical body, but not of flesh and blood. We will not be a disembodied soul floating in heaven!

You didn't answer my question, and I am already aware of the verses you gave me which is why I asked a question in regards to the very first verse you gave me.

Yup. You too.

Hi Elopez,
The righteous will be resurected and have eternal life, but I can't see it as a disembodied state. The resurrection state will have no end.

 

[elopez]

Eternal life means after we die, we will be resurrected in a new incorruptible body to be with God on the new earth forever. We will have a physical body, but not of flesh and blood. We will not be a disembodied soul floating in heave!

If the physical body newly resurrected does not have flesh or blood, then in what way is it a body or even physical?

Hi Elopez,
The righteous will be resurrected and have eternal life, but I can't see it as a disembodied state. The resurrection state will have no end.

This doesn't answer my question either. I'll state it again. If there are two separate words for "body" and "soul" in Matthew 10:28 and each means the same then why does it say that we cannot harm our soul yet can harm our body?

 

[gluadys]

Jesus said himself in Matthew 25:46 that the righteous will go into eternal life. If life is everlasting, a soul must be able to endure this experience without end. The soul would have to be immortal.

The body will enjoy life everlasting in the resurrection but that doesn't make it immortal now. The body will "put on immortality" in the resurrection. Why does the soul have to be immortal now in order to enjoy life everlasting in the resurrection?

You know what's interesting about Matthew 10:28 is that there is a different word for "body" then there is for "soul." The orignal Greek for "body" is soma and is "the body as a whole, the instrument of life." The original Greek for "soul" is psuche and is indeed one sense regarded as a moral being that is designed for everlasting life. I'm sure you'll disagree with that but consider this: If there are two separate words for "body" and "soul," and each means the same (as i suspect you would say?) then why does it say that we cannot harm our soul yet can harm our body?

The New Testament is written in Greek instead of Hebrew. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, psuche was used to translate nephesh . That doesn't mean the rabbis changed their view of the soul to agree with Plato and other Greek philosophers.

Nor does it mean that when New Testament writers translated Jesus' Aramaic into Greek, that they intended to translate Judaic concepts of soul into Platonic concepts.

Platonic and Gnostic concepts, however, have come to dominate modern notions of soul and so are read back into scripture.

 

[Jpark]

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.

While that is undoubtedly true (i.e. Psalm 76:2, Psalm 51:11)...

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

That doesn't explain how Nebuchadnezzar was still alive.

If the spirit/breath provides intelligence and without it man dies (Job 34:14-15), how come Nebuchadnezzar was still alive when he lost it?

Also, what do you make of 1 Cor. 2:11 and Matt. 26:41?

Surely there's more to it than just synonyms.

 

[gluadys]

While that is undoubtedly true (i.e. Psalm 76:2, Psalm 51:11)...

That doesn't explain how Nebuchadnezzar was still alive.

If the spirit/breath provides intelligence and without it man dies (Job 34:14-15), how come Nebuchadnezzar was still alive when he lost it?

Ah, 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.

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.

Also, what do you make of 1 Cor. 2:11 and Matt. 26:41?

What question do they raise in your mind?

Surely there's more to it than just synonyms.

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.

 

[elopez]

The body will enjoy life everlasting in the resurrection but that doesn't make it immortal now. The body will "put on immortality" in the resurrection. Why does the soul have to be immortal now in order to enjoy life everlasting in the resurrection?

Well first of all I don't believe in an everlasting resurrection. I believe in everlasting life with God. The soul is immortal presently and always because it was designed that way by Him as God is without end always. Why do you assume the soul is not immortal presently but gains immortality at the resurrection?

The New Testament is written in Greek instead of Hebrew.

No wonder, which is why I said the original word for "body" and "soul" are in Greek.

When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, psuche was used to translate nephesh. That doesn't mean the rabbis changed their view of the soul to agree with Plato and other Greek philosophers.

I didn't say that. I asked if there are two different words for "body" and "soul" yet if they mean the same thing, why does it say in Matthew 10:28 that we can destroy the body but not the soul?

Nor does it mean that when New Testament writers translated Jesus' Aramaic into Greek, that they intended to translate Judaic concepts of soul into Platonic concepts.

Didn't say this either, and nor is this an answer to my question. Why are people being so evasive of this question?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

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

The Word teaches us that we are created in Adam's loins as seed, written in the book of Life to come into our being in our pre-ordained season. The Adam spirit is one spirit, the Word teaches us [Malachi 2:15, for one, and others] and we all have our remnant of that one Adam spirit at conception.
It is the Adam spirit that builds the house =the human being body- for the germinated seed/soul to house in, at conception.

It is the Adam spirit that is the driving force for each soul/seed written in the book of Life to come into its being, in its pre-ordained season. You can view the spirit of the Adam working, under a microscope and then put on fast forward film, to build the house/body for the soul that is germinated/come into its being at conception.

When you were in the loins of your Adam father at creation, as seed, you were already designed and written in the Book of Life to come into your being, and even the number of hair [follicles] your head would have was written in that Book.
The Word teaches us this truth about the creation of the Adam kind, in the beginning.

In Hebrews 7, we see the fact mentioned that Levi, the great grandson of Abraham, was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melche-Zedek [who was Shem, as the ancients wrote].
That fact is true from the beginning, and that fact is why we all died in Adam, as the living seed who were to come into our being as human being sons of God [Malachi 2:15, again], from the loins of the first father, descended through the male line.
The soul/person come to fruit in Adam comes from the loins of the male Adam person, with the house built for that soul getting inheritance from the male and the female parents.

 

[gluadys]

Well first of all I don't believe in an everlasting resurrection. I believe in everlasting life with God.

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?

The soul is immortal presently and always because it was designed that way by Him as God is without end always. Why do you assume the soul is not immortal presently but gains immortality at the resurrection?

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.

No wonder, which is why I said the original word for "body" and "soul" are in Greek.

I didn't say that. I asked if there are two different words for "body" and "soul" yet if they mean the same thing, why does it say in Matthew 10:28 that we can destroy the body but not the soul?

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.

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.

Didn't say this either, and nor is this an answer to my question.

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.

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. We have to try and get to the Hebrew thought behind the Greek terminology.