Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

At What Point is the Human Soul/Spirit Created?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • At What Point is the Human Soul/Spirit Created?

    So, I was listening to a weird supernatural podcast that Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser does called Peeranormal. It's a podcast where he explores with other co-hosts, peer reviewed work on all sorts of supernatural claims that range from ghosts, to ESP, to Bigfoot and beyond. It's essentially a Christian version of Leonard Nimoy's old In Search Of... program, or Art Bell/George Noory's Coast to Coast AM (which Dr. Heiser has appeared on as a guest a number of times).

    Anyhow, Dr. Heiser brought up the subject of when the soul begins to exist. He pinpointed three popular views within Christianity (I hope I'm getting this right),

    1.) Creationism: The soul is created uniquely by God immediately upon conception out of nothing.

    2.) Traducianism: The soul forms through natural means at the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg (in this way God is still the creator of the soul, but through the medium of the parents).

    3.) The preexistence of the soul. This is Origen's view that all souls were created by God at some point in the distant past, and that they are placed into bodies when their time comes. This is one of a number of views that got Origen in trouble because folks thought it hinted of reincarnation (though technically that's not an accurate assessment of his view).


    Dr. Heiser seems very keen on the third view. He has mentioned this view in his other podcast The Naked Bible, and referenced a book by Mormon professor of literature, Terryl Givens, called When Souls Had Wings: Pre-mortal existence in Western Thought (a book that also cites Heiser). In Heiser's Naked Bible Podcast #189 (a recording of a live question and answer seminar he did in Boston), he states,
    "if you got into this book and you found out the author is a Mormon, don’t let that freak you out, because he’s not doing Mormonism in the book."​

    But that's obviously disingenuous, since preexistence of the soul is Mormonism 101.

    I can think of a few reasons why Heiser appreciates this view, but I'll go into that after I see where the rest of the forum lands on the issue. I think option 2 makes the most sense, but I'm not opposed to option 1. I think option 3 is...strange, to say the least.

  • #2
    Personally, 2 makes the most sense to me.
    Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

    Comment


    • #3

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't have a problem with number three. In that case I would look at the soul as a blank CD. God inserts the soul, whenever, then our thoughts, desires and personal experiences are burnt into the CD (soul) as we grow and develop. And since the CD is not material it can survive the death of the body - with our personality intact. So the soul in its primitive form is not a person or personality, but only becomes one after it is united with our physical bodies.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I don't have a problem with number three. In that case I would look at the soul as a blank CD. God inserts the soul, whenever, then our thoughts, desires and personal experiences are burnt into the CD (soul) as we grow and develop. And since the CD is not material it can survive the death of the body - with our personality intact. So the soul in its primitive form is not a person or personality, but only becomes one after it is united with our physical bodies.
          I think Origen's (and maybe Heiser's) conception of this, though, is that soul is not blank before incarnation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I think Origen's (and maybe Heiser's) conception of this, though, is that soul is not blank before incarnation.
            Right, and I would disagree with that. I don't think we were persons or individuals before conception.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the soul is created when the egg is fertilized. That is when we come into being, both as a physical and a spiritual being. So I would say #1 although I would allow for #2 also.

              Although I have heard of a 4th "way" - mostly by those who want to allow abortion or who can't see God allowing miscarriages of ensouled beings...

              God inserts the soul at birth.

              I don't buy that though, just wanted to throw it out there for your list.

              Here is a question though...

              What is the difference between your spirit and your soul? Sometimes the bible seems to use them as synonyms, and other times as different things. The words in greek are different too, referring to breath/pneuma (Spirit) and mind/psyche (soul)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Right, and I would disagree with that. I don't think we were persons or individuals before conception.
                Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" at least implies otherwise.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" at least implies otherwise.
                  Or is that just foreknowledge?
                  Last edited by seer; 08-29-2019, 02:06 PM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Or is that jut foreknowledge?
                    That's what I see. Also, if God creates us, he doesn't just pop out a generic soul and stick it in the egg. He knows who we will be, who he wants us to be, and creates us and our strengths and flaws and personality by design. At least that is how I see it. So he does know us before he makes us.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      What is the difference between your spirit and your soul? Sometimes the bible seems to use them as synonyms, and other times as different things. The words in greek are different too, referring to breath/pneuma (Spirit) and mind/psyche (soul)
                      That is a good question. Ben Witherington III suggests the following differences between soul and spirit,

                      Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

                      Paul uses the term pneuma of the human spirit sparingly. Normally pneuma means Holy Spirit in Paul. First Corinthians 14:14 (32?) speaks about "my spirit," and in 14:15 spirit and mind are contrasted. Some have suggested, however, that spirit here refers to something God gives the Christian, not something inherent in human nature (i.e., the spiritual agency that activates gifts). Against this, however, Paul speaks only of the Holy Spirit in these terms, not my "spirit." Further, 2 Cor. 7:1 speaks of defilers of the spirit and of the flesh. It is hard to see how one could defile the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit is another matter. Thus spirit seems to refer to a part of one's being that involves the suprarational or noncognitive aspects of human experience--broadly speaking, that which goes beyond the material and empirical. Paul, however, does not seem to see the human "spirit" as a material part of a person. We can only conjecture that he associates it perhaps with something like the image of God in humanity, that which makes possible relationships and communion with God, who is Spirit.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

                      Paul uses the term psuche sparingly as well, and its cognate psuchikos. It clearly does not mean soul for Paul. Thus, for instance at Romans 1, quoting the Old Testament, he uses psuche in its Old Testament sense of life or self (the Hebrew nephesh). So too at Rom. 16:4 Paul speaks of those who risked their "lives" for his life (similarly at Phil. 2:30). In 1 Cor. 15:45 in the Old Testament quotation, Adam is said to become a living being (a living psuche). At times then, the term psuche is simply synonymous with human being (cf. Rom. 2:9; 13:1), without stress on one's being alive, though that is necessarily implied. First Thessalonians 5:23 has sometimes been used to argue that Paul had a trichotomous view of human nature: body, soul, spirit. Against this, however, psuche likely means here the life principle that animates the body. Psuchikos as an adjective is used by Paul in its normal sense to mean physical (just the opposite of soul) or natural, or possibly even unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46). This term describes the natural human being (i.e., a person without the Holy Spirit) over against a person who has the spirit.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      I'm fine with either view (bipartate or tripartite), though I think I lean towards the tripartite one. I've heard it simplified to body=our physical/material being, spirit=that element which connects us to God and the supernatural, and that is specifically made in his image, soul=that which animates the body, and is also the seat of the emotions. Animals can have body and soul, but likely don't have spirit, whereas mankind has all three. I don't know how much of that is correct, but it more or less makes sense to me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        That is a good question. Ben Witherington III suggests the following differences between soul and spirit,

                        Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

                        Paul uses the term pneuma of the human spirit sparingly. Normally pneuma means Holy Spirit in Paul. First Corinthians 14:14 (32?) speaks about "my spirit," and in 14:15 spirit and mind are contrasted. Some have suggested, however, that spirit here refers to something God gives the Christian, not something inherent in human nature (i.e., the spiritual agency that activates gifts). Against this, however, Paul speaks only of the Holy Spirit in these terms, not my "spirit." Further, 2 Cor. 7:1 speaks of defilers of the spirit and of the flesh. It is hard to see how one could defile the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit is another matter. Thus spirit seems to refer to a part of one's being that involves the suprarational or noncognitive aspects of human experience--broadly speaking, that which goes beyond the material and empirical. Paul, however, does not seem to see the human "spirit" as a material part of a person. We can only conjecture that he associates it perhaps with something like the image of God in humanity, that which makes possible relationships and communion with God, who is Spirit.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

                        Paul uses the term psuche sparingly as well, and its cognate psuchikos. It clearly does not mean soul for Paul. Thus, for instance at Romans 1, quoting the Old Testament, he uses psuche in its Old Testament sense of life or self (the Hebrew nephesh). So too at Rom. 16:4 Paul speaks of those who risked their "lives" for his life (similarly at Phil. 2:30). In 1 Cor. 15:45 in the Old Testament quotation, Adam is said to become a living being (a living psuche). At times then, the term psuche is simply synonymous with human being (cf. Rom. 2:9; 13:1), without stress on one's being alive, though that is necessarily implied. First Thessalonians 5:23 has sometimes been used to argue that Paul had a trichotomous view of human nature: body, soul, spirit. Against this, however, psuche likely means here the life principle that animates the body. Psuchikos as an adjective is used by Paul in its normal sense to mean physical (just the opposite of soul) or natural, or possibly even unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46). This term describes the natural human being (i.e., a person without the Holy Spirit) over against a person who has the spirit.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        I'm fine with either view (bipartate or tripartite), though I think I lean towards the tripartite one. I've heard it simplified to body=our physical/material being, spirit=that element which connects us to God and the supernatural, and that is specifically made in his image, soul=that which animates the body, and is also the seat of the emotions. Animals can have body and soul, but likely don't have spirit, whereas mankind has all three. I don't know how much of that is correct, but it more or less makes sense to me.

                        er thanks? Not sure I followed all that or that it answered the question.

                        I have seen "soul" used as referring to a living person before too. We even do it ourselves when we say about a plane crash, "300 souls lost" or similar. Could the "soul" be your entire being, comprised of your body, mind and spirit?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" at least implies otherwise.
                          Yep, that's one of the key verses for the preexistence view, though as seer quickly noted, it could be due to foreknowledge. The other example that Heiser himself uses is Hebrews 7,

                          Scripture Verse: Hebrews 7:4

                          See how great this man [Melchizedek] was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          I personally think it's a stretch, and that this passage has more to do with ancestral solidarity.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            er thanks? Not sure I followed all that or that it answered the question.
                            Witherington is basically pointing out that "spirit" (pneuma) and "soul" (psuche) are possibly distinct in Paul's writings.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            I have seen "soul" used as referring to a living person before too. We even do it ourselves when we say about a plane crash, "300 souls lost" or similar. Could the "soul" be your entire being, comprised of your body, mind and spirit?
                            I don't know. I would think that the body would have to be at least distinct from the mind and spirit.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Witherington is basically pointing out that "spirit" (pneuma) and "soul" (psuche) are possibly distinct in Paul's writings.



                              I don't know. I would think that the body would have to be at least distinct from the mind and spirit.
                              Well our mind seems to be more than just our brains chugging along. I think our brain is more of a spirit/body interface. If it is damaged, it can affect how the mind works, or controls the body, but it isn't the mind itself. Like a radio transmitter. The person broadcasting isn't the radio. If you damage the radio, you could damage the transmission and the message could get garbled.

                              So while each part is distinct, it all is one. Almost like the trinity.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X