The soul of man

[jaybird]

That is just one view, a theory. Don't state it as fact. For all intents and purposes, it's linear. Biblically speaking, time began and will end, hence it is linear.

today its a view, in those old days it was accepted.

Proof please.

i will find some things, but even your mainstream theologians agree on this.

This has nothing to do with thinking outside the box; it has everything to do with what the Bible says. If you think you have some novel new idea about something Scripture says, chances are exceedingly high that it is wrong. There is only one who existed before they were conceived, and that is Jesus.

but the bible does not give a detailed explanation either way. we have doctrines that are taught to the masses that do mislead the masses that pre existence is non biblical. when the fact if the bible says little about it.

Again, you are taking a single verse and making a doctrine from it. That is a serious mistake.

there are other verses but im not letting this one go for now. there was something in that verse that was spoken of as being known, being ordained, until you can explain what that something is im not moving on to something else. ignoring what scripture says is a serious mistake in my opinion.

Please leave comments about Rome out of it. And please, once again, provide proof that "most theologians in the days of Jesus and the 12 did believe it." I'm seeing a whole lot of conjecture from you but no substance, no evidence.

why leave rome out of it when its very relevant to the point, they were the ones that changed this idea. i know you dont like that but it is in fact true.

 

[jaybird]

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”​

Jeremiah 1:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Jeremiah 1:5&version=NASB

my mistake on that one chess.

 

[OzSpen]

It is speaking of God’s foreknowledge and foreordination of Jeremiah as a prophet, nothing more.

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—(ESV)

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (ESV)

God knows everything that will happen and as such preordains people to do certain tasks. Nowhere is it taught that any human preexisted physical conception.

 

[OzSpen]

i will find some things, but even your mainstream theologians agree on this.

Who are they and what did they state? (with documentation, please)

 

[Randy]

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”​

Jeremiah 1:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Jeremiah 1:5&version=NASB

I read that as, "I had you in my plans before I brought my plan into fruition."

 

[OzSpen]

No, But again I except those things by faith. Jesus is alive! Others don't know Him. What you state is written in the testimony and there are no valid excuses for not accepting Jesus.

I hope you meant 'accept' and not 'except'.

Do you accept by faith that Jesus lived? Who is this Jesus?

Do you accept by faith that Jesus was crucified? How do you know that happened? Is this a leap of faith or is it faith founded on fact?

What about the resurrection of Jesus? See: Can Jesus Christ’s resurrection be investigated as history?

I've written about: Junk you hear at Easter about Jesus’ resurrection

Oz

 

[eddif]

I am awaiting the thread on the born again new man.

eddif

 

[chessman]

I read that as, "I had you in my plans before I brought my plan into fruition."

I do too. Which teaches zilch about Jeremiah’s pre-existing his formation IN the womb.

 

[GodsGrace]

Rednecks must think they know it all. Maybe it is because of ignorance.

The Father draws us to Jesus.
How?
By convincing us of sin (using the law lawfully is a way).

With this new found information that there is a wrath to come; we seek relief from eternal punishment.
..................
Then we hear the good news:
Jesus died fo take care of our sin. We need to believe to receive.
.......,,,,,
If we wish to help others we need the Holy
Spirit.

eddif

I love short but great posts.
Romans 1:19-20
1 corinthians 2:14

 

[Randy]

I do too. Which teaches zilch about Jeremiah’s pre-existing his formation IN the womb.

Yeah, I think my beginning was in my mothers womb not before. Jesus is the only exception.

 

[Randy]

I hope you meant 'accept' and not 'except'.

Do you accept by faith that Jesus lived? Who is this Jesus?

Do you accept by faith that Jesus was crucified? How do you know that happened? Is this a leap of faith or is it faith founded on fact?

What about the resurrection of Jesus? See: Can Jesus Christ’s resurrection be investigated as history?

I've written about: Junk you hear at Easter about Jesus’ resurrection

Oz

Yes I do accept all that is written about Jesus by faith - but I also have the witness of the Spirit to my spirit.
Jesus=>My sheep hear my voice
Those that listen and learn from the Father go to the Son. As it is written "they shall all be taught by God"

IF one doesn't believe in the accounting given in the NT its highly unlikely there isn't going to be an investigation that changes their mind.
Likewise as Jesus spoke to His generation=>He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

 

[OzSpen]

Yeah, I think my beginning was in my mothers womb not before. Jesus is the only exception.

Yes, at conception. 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me' (Ps 51:5 NIV). 'Me' started at conception.

 

[Free]

today its a view, in those old days it was accepted.

Again, opinion without support. Please, provide evidence.

i will find some things, but even your mainstream theologians agree on this.

I cannot wait to see who agrees with you. And I hope you know that anyone from Mormonism or any other cult is most certainly not acceptable.

but the bible does not give a detailed explanation either way. we have doctrines that are taught to the masses that do mislead the masses that pre existence is non biblical. when the fact if the bible says little about it.

There is no misleading because the Bible never states that we pre-exist. The obvious conclusion is that we don't. It was God's breath that gave Adam life, at which point he became a living soul. It was not a pre-existing soul of Adam that God put into him that caused him to come alive.

there are other verses but im not letting this one go for now. there was something in that verse that was spoken of as being known, being ordained, until you can explain what that something is im not moving on to something else. ignoring what scripture says is a serious mistake in my opinion.

First, let's look at what the verse actually states:

Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (ESV)

We can see that it is only prior to being born that Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed a prophet. So, he already existed in flesh, in the womb, when those happened. All that appears to sustain your position then is that God "knew" Jeremiah prior to "forming" him in the womb. And yet we see throughout Scripture that God foreknows those who are his (he foreknows everyone), which is precisely why it is no different for God to say that he knew someone prior to their conception. Here we have no reason to think otherwise, just as I can say that God knew me before I was born yet I did not exist until conception.

One simply cannot take one verse that appears to say one thing and make it trump the significant weight of Scripture that says something else. Scripture interprets Scripture and when something isn't clear, one must look to the rest of Scripture that speaks about the same matter to bring clarity to that which is obscure. Again, it is a dangerous to make a doctrine out of one verse.

Of course, the irony is that on the one hand you are arguing that time is not linear, yet on the other hand, this whole argument about Jeremiah 1:5 requires that time is linear. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

In one sense, time doesn't really exist for God as he exists outside of time. As such, all is present to him, from beginning to end. So one could make the argument that God was speaking of knowing Jeremiah prior to his being formed in the womb because Jeremiah's whole life is ever present before God. Which means that God can say he knew Jeremiah in the present tense even though Jeremiah did not exist prior to his being conceived.

why leave rome out of it when its very relevant to the point, they were the ones that changed this idea. i know you dont like that but it is in fact true.

Rome is to be left out of it because it is a violation of the TOS, that's why.

 

[jaybird]

Again, opinion without support. Please, provide evidence.[

not researching anymore for you, have to do this one on your own, start with solar. lunar calendars and how they differ from modern calendars. time, life was in cycles.

I cannot wait to see who agrees with you. And I hope you know that anyone from Mormonism or any other cult is most certainly not acceptable.

Josephus - Jewish war
"Pharisees believed all souls were immortal,but only the souls of the righteous received a new body after death"
zealots had same theology as pharisees they were just rebels of rome.

Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews
5. The doctrine of the Essens is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for

Sadducee believed in no spiritual world.

so of all the sects in the days of Jesus, all but one believed in pre existence.

There is no misleading because the Bible never states that we pre-exist.

if never mentioned why do so many mainstream churches attack and teach against it when the scriptures never mention it?

The obvious conclusion is that we don't.

the obvious conclusion is to add our own , they we never existed, which never is mentioned in scripture

It was God's breath that gave Adam life, at which point he became a living soul. It was not a pre-existing soul of Adam that God put into him that caused him to come alive.

the breath pre existed


First, let's look at what the verse actually states:

Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (ESV)

We can see that it is only prior to being born that Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed a prophet. So, he already existed in flesh, in the womb, when those happened. All that appears to sustain your position then is that God "knew" Jeremiah prior to "forming" him in the womb. And yet we see throughout Scripture that God foreknows those who are his (he foreknows everyone), which is precisely why it is no different for God to say that he knew someone prior to their conception. Here we have no reason to think otherwise, just as I can say that God knew me before I was born yet I did not exist until conception.

this would be a great argument if the scripture said , at the time of formation in the womb he was consecrated, but that is not what it says, it says "before" the formation in the womb

One simply cannot take one verse that appears to say one thing and make it trump the significant weight of Scripture that says something else. Scripture interprets Scripture and when something isn't clear, one must look to the rest of Scripture that speaks about the same matter to bring clarity to that which is obscure. Again, it is a dangerous to make a doctrine out of one verse.

but that is in fact exactly what you are doing, you taking the word "before" and trying to apply a different meaning to it to mean "at the present time". thats not what before means.

Rome is to be left out of it because it is a violation of the TOS, that's why.

ok well it was never taught against until almost 600 years after Jesus and it was taught against with great zeal. why was it not a big heresy in the days of Jesus? it wasnt because it was not a heresy. no one had a problem with it.

 

[chessman]

Yeah, I think my beginning was in my mothers womb not before. Jesus is the only exception.

Thus the reason Scripture accurately states that Christ comes from above (not being born from above) and descended. That is, The Son pre-existed Mary’s womb. Which is not so, with any other person.

13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.​

John 3:13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 3:13&version=NASB

“ He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.​

John 3:31 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 3:31&version=NASB

Making the false claim that any other person other than Christ “comes from above” and enters the womb as a pre-existing ‘soul’ not only has no support Biblically (including Jer 1:5) but is an outright contradiction to John 3:31’s claim of the supremacy of Christ.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’​

John 3:6-7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 3:6-7&version=NASB

Men and women are first flesh (not spirit) then some become born of The Spirit (Holy Spirit). Not the other way around.

 

[OzSpen]

I read that as, "I had you in my plans before I brought my plan into fruition."

Randy,

Do you know what that kind of interpretation is called in contemporary society? It is reader-response, postmodern, deconstruction. This means that I, the reader, deconstruct/reconstruct the meaning of any text to make it say what I, the reader, want it to say.

'I read that as' (your words) is postmodern deconstruction as a method of biblical interpretation, i.e. the reader imposes his/her meaning on the text and has no intention of discerning what the original author intended by what he/she wrote.

It destroys the meaning of what the original author wrote.

Oz

 

[Randy]

Randy,

Do you know what that kind of interpretation is called in contemporary society? It is reader-response, postmodern, deconstruction. This means that I, the reader, deconstruct/reconstruct the meaning of any text to make it say what I, the reader, want it to say.

'I read that as' (your words) is postmodern deconstruction as a method of biblical interpretation, i.e. the reader imposes his/her meaning on the text and has no intention of discerning what the original author intended by what he/she wrote.

It destroys the meaning of what the original author wrote.

Oz

Zech 12:1The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person
Not preformed and put into the body but formed within

 

[Randy]

Randy,

Do you know what that kind of interpretation is called in contemporary society? It is reader-response, postmodern, deconstruction. This means that I, the reader, deconstruct/reconstruct the meaning of any text to make it say what I, the reader, want it to say.

'I read that as' (your words) is postmodern deconstruction as a method of biblical interpretation, i.e. the reader imposes his/her meaning on the text and has no intention of discerning what the original author intended by what he/she wrote.

It destroys the meaning of what the original author wrote.

Oz

Sorry I wasn't there when God laid the foundations of the world. At what point in time do you believe God formed your spirit?

 

[Papa Zoom]

@oz

Papa,

I'm not familiar with John Walton's work but I did browse the table of contents in the link you gave and read sections of a couple of chapters. Sounds like an interesting, but different, perspective.

Could you summarise briefly what his thesis is?

My son and dauther-in-law gave me an Amazon coupon for my birthday in May and I haven't spent it yet. I'm planning to purchase Michael Denton's, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. He has an MD (medicine) and PhD (biochemistry), so he's not a dumbo.

This is a follow-up to his book that he wrote over 30 years ago, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. He's not a believer, but provides some stunning evidence to challenge macro-evolution.

Oz

I don't think we (as Christians) will ever solve the age of the earth question or the matter of origins by using the Bible. As I've said in other threads, the Bible doesn't say anything. We read the Bible and interpret it. And frankly, we do a poor job of it in so many ways. Proof of this is the fact that there are so many different and opposing interpretation of Scripture. Christians are constantly pulling out meanings from the text that were never in the text in the first place. This I've always recognized as a serious problem in the Church. We have too many self proclaimed experts (this is NOT aimed at you but is a shotgun blast at Christianity in general) running around convinced their view is true and there's no room for discussion (which makes me wonder what in the world they are doing on a discussion board in the first place!

I've been frustrated for years that deeper discussions rarely happen and certain questions are taboo. I will ask God anything and I don't care what others think anymore. I've thought for years (for example) that Adam was not the only human male who was created and lived during the same time as Adam (and I'm not talking about Adam's son). The same is true of Eve. It never made sense to me that there were so many people around so quickly after the introduction of Adam and Eve.

I've never really believed the Bible had anything to say about science or the age of the earth. I didn't know why but I felt something was missing.

And I'm positive to within 100% that the Bible was NOT written to US! It was written to a specific people and we are not that people. That's a premise from John Walton's books and I was surprised to find that someone else saw things this way (but his views are on a much more sophisticated level - I'm a total novice but do have an operational brain and a curious mind and I'm not afraid to ask questions and challenge prevailing views).

So enter John Walton's book on Adam and Eve. He lays out a solid foundation in his book in the way of propositions. For starters he says this:
"In this book, I will contend that the perceived threat posed by the current consensus about human origins is overblown. That consensus accepts the principles of common ancestry and evolutionary theory as the explanation for the existence of all life. Though we should not blindly accept the scientific consensus if its results are questionable on scientific principles, we can reach an understanding that regardless of whether the scientific conclusions stand the test of time or not, they pose no threat to biblical belief.

Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (p. 13). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

The OT was not written to us and this is clearly true. For us, yes, but to us, no. It's a huge mistake to think otherwise. It was written to a certain people in a certain time and place who experienced the world in a far different way than we experience it. They had a specific culture that influenced their thinking. The Bible does not transcend culture. It's specifically written to a people of a particular culture and if we expect to understand Its message, we need to understand the audience to which it was written AND in that understanding, we need to explore the culture of the time.

"I propose that in the Bible God has accommodated the communicator and immediate audience, employing the communicator in a high-context communication appropriate to the audience......
When we read the Bible, we enter the context of that communication as low-context outsiders who need to use all our inferential tools to discern the nature of the communicator’s illocution and meaning."

Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (p. 16). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

That's enough from his book for now. Suffice it to say that we gain a better understanding of God's word when we enter into the world of the intended audience. We need to understand the messages from God in the same way they understood them. The language was different and word meaning was different in many cases. It's never a slam dunk as some members here seem to believe. We should divorce ourselves from our own cultural biases and enter into the world of the early Hebrews. It's through their eyes and ears that we will gain understanding that is more in line with the intended message of say for example, Genesis 1 and 2.

Here's the Amazon.com blurb for the book on Adam and Eve: "2016 Christianity Today Biblical Studies Award of Merit For centuries the story of Adam and Eve has resonated richly through the corridors of art, literature and theology. But for most moderns, taking it at face value is incongruous. And even for many thinking Christians today who want to take seriously the authority of Scripture, insisting on a "literal" understanding of Genesis 2–3 looks painfully like a "tear here" strip between faith and science. How can Christians of good faith move forward? Who were the historical Adam and Eve? What if we've been reading Genesis―and its claims regarding material origins―wrong? In what cultural context was this couple, this garden, this tree, this serpent portrayed? Following his groundbreaking Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton explores the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis 2–3, creating space for a faithful reading of Scripture along with full engagement with science for a new way forward in the human origins debate. As a bonus, an illuminating excursus by N. T. Wright places Adam in the implied narrative of Paul's theology. The Lost World of Adam and Eve will be required reading for anyone seeking to understand this foundational text historically and theologically, and wondering how to view it alongside contemporary understandings of human origins."

 

[eddif]

I don't think we (as Christians) will ever solve the age of the earth question

Do not have to solve it.
Day 4 is when 24 hour days were started.
eddif