When does God put souls into bodies?

[jasonc]

since the term new age was brought up. uhm I have heard both Christians and new agers, and some jews say this. we are soul having a body experience. okay show me that we have a soul is written in the bible. I believe we are a soul.

 

[FreeGrace]

Because it was according to God's election (God's choice) to do so. But in support of my point, what's up with God hating Easu when Rebecca conceived?

There is no evidence for this statement.

Rom 9: 10 (LEB) when Rebecca conceived children by one man, Isaac our father—...—it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” 13 just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Here's the problem. Rom 9:10 doesn't say anything about God hating esau WHEN Rebecca conceived. It says that God said that he would serve the younger. There is no hate in that statement.

In v.13 we note that Paul quoted directly from Mal 1:2,3, which was written about 400 years AFTER the twins were born, and in NO WAY refers to the actual twins, but the NATIONS that came from each twin.
Gen 25:23 - 23The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.”

What God hated was how the Edomites (from Esau) treated and mistreated the Jews (from Jacob).

 

[chessman]

It does specifically say that ,"Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit."

Yes, you are right. I meant to attach verse 15 to support my argument:

Luke 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord,and he must never drink wine or beer,and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while he is still in his mother’s womb. ​

Again, I don't know when God imputes the soul to a baby. But I have no reason to believe it's done post-birth. Else, why would God fill a soulless baby with the Holy Spirit as he did John.

 

[FreeGrace]

Does God still create mankind from the dust of the earth and breath into them the breath of life?

I'll let Scripture answer that good question:
Eccl 12:7 - then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

The "dust" here refers to the human body, which we all know decomposes back to dust. And we know that God creates the souls of men from these verses:
Isa 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath [neshemah] to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it,

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me (asah- human being, And the breath [neshemah] of the Almighty gives me life.

Unless you can show where God literally made any other person from the dust of the graound and breathed into them the breath of life, then your entire "theory" is baseless.

See above for the support for my view. What verses are there for your theory?

18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18

Jesus Christ was "birthed' from the womb of Mary.

No, to be "birthed" means to come out of the womb. Matt 1:18 speaks of the conception which began the preparation for His body. Heb 10:5

Mary's body was used to give birth to the man Jesus Christ.

No question about it.

God did not create the body of Jesus Christ from the dust of the ground and breathe the breath of life into Him.

What we know is that God prepared a body for the Son of God. Heb 10:5. Just like He did for the first Adam, per Gen 2:7.

What evidence is there for the theory that God imputes souls into fertilized eggs (unprepared bodies)?

 

[FreeGrace]

1 The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

Speaking of human beings who have already been birthed.

24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; Isaiah 44:24

Speaks of the preparation of biological life (the physical body). Just as Jesus noted: Heb 10:5.

I see evidence from these scriptures that God forms the spirit/soul or inner part of man in the womb.

That's not what the verses say at all. God prepares the physical body through the process we call gestation. For the first Adam, He did it from the existing materials of the ground (chemicals). But for the Last Adam, He used the 9 month gestation period that we all go through.

Where is the evidence that God imputes souls into unprepared bodies?

 

[FreeGrace]

You mean to tell me that you think John The Baptist, as a pre-born baby with a soul, wasn't recognizing Jesus prior to his birth?

That verse is totally misunderstood. It was Elizabeth who reacted to Mary's voice, and her emotional reaction led to movement of the fetus. This is a well known phenomena. Just ask nearly every woman who has carried a child to term.

Luke 1:39-41 (LEB)

39 Now in those days Mary set out and traveled with haste into the hill country, to a town of Judah, 40 and entered into the house of Zechariah, and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And it happened that when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leaped and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.​

Do you think God filled a soulless baby with the Holy Spirit?

No, He didn't. And this passage doesn't say that He did. It says that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Not John.

I don't subscribe to abortion, so this article is irrelevant.

Actually the baby was delivered via C-Section and was very much alive and still is. My extension was to assume that doctor didn't burst the water sack and cut the cord for some amount of time, days, weeks, whatever. The baby would still be alive and hearing, feeling and even to some extent recognizing it's mother, etc. In other words, for all intensive purpose and infant with a soul, just getting it's oxygen via amniotic fluid, not air.

"for all intensive purpose" is just pure assumption and conjecture.

You mean like it was wrong for the angel of the Lord to tell Zechariah to call the baby John prior to the baby's birth.

Since the vast majority of pregnancies end with a living baby, we certainly can name the child prior to birth. That doesn't give the fetus a soul, or indicate that it has a soul. Again, pure speculation otherwise.

And again, the Scriptures have already been posted that describe God netting human beings together inside the womb, not waiting till they are born to call them a human being.

First, there are NO verses that say that God puts or nets "human beings together inside the womb". What is occurring during the 9 month period is to PREPARING a body for the soul. I know this from Heb 10:5.

But whatever, if your mind has already been made up on your idea that humans don't get their souls until after-birth, then have at it. Not sure why you asked others what they thought, though.

I never said "after birth". Please go back and carefully read what I've posted before making this kind of mistake. It doesn't help your side to mischaracterize the other side.

 

[gr8grace3]

Yes, you are right. I meant to attach verse 15 to support my argument:

Luke 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord,and he must never drink wine or beer,and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while he is still in his mother’s womb. ​

Again, I don't know when God imputes the soul to a baby. But I have no reason to believe it's done post-birth. Else, why would God fill a soulless baby with the Holy Spirit as he did John.

I would look at your translation and go to an authority on the original language. The KJV got it right in this case.

Luke 1:15~~King James Bible
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost,even from(out of) his mother's womb.

ek 1537 ---- ---- gen -- prep--- out of 19
koilia 2836 fem ---- gen s noun--- belly 20
mntnr 3384 fem ---- gen s noun--- mother 21

26th ed. Nestles, Allen Text, American Bible Society; New York
Gramcord Institute, 2218 NE Brookview Dr,; Vancouver WA 98686

http://www.gracebiblechurch.us/bible/luk1.txt

 

[JLB]

Speaking of human beings who have already been birthed.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

Man is a spirit, created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

Man is a spirit, created in the image and likeness of God.

Let's read the verse carefully. It says that God forms (creates) the spirit of man (which is) within him. If one can prove that the verse means that God forms the spirit in the womb, please be my guest. But it certainly doesn't say that.

I'm interested in what God's Word says. And Gen 2:7 and Heb 10:5 clearly indicate that God prepares a body BEFORE He imputes the soul.

Or in the case of the Last Adam, the human body was prepared (9 month gestation) for the soul of Jesus, which already existed. In any case, a body was prepared for the Son of God. There is no verse that says that Jesus existed in an unprepared body (gestation period).

What's the purpose of gestation? To prepare the physical body (biological life) for life outside the womb.

Jesus clearly didn't take on an unprepared body.

 

[Deborah13]

It seems very clear to me that breathing into the nostrils is the same as putting. Or imputing. Let's not have a semantic debate.

But it doesn't say that soul [nephesh] is what is imputed by God's breath. It is the spirit/ruach.
Gen 7:22 all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [ruach]--of all that is in the dry land--have died.
Do you not see a difference between words, nephesh is not the same as ruach.
As the scriptures that I pointed out animals are also living nephesh but no where that I know of, does God say He breathed into them ruach.

You mentioned James 2:26....compare how James uses these Greek words.
Jas 2:26 for as the body apart from the spirit [pneuma] is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.
Jas 5:20 let him know that he who did turn back a sinner from the straying of his way shall save a soul [psuche] from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

I don't see how you can use Hebrews 10:5 to support your view. This scripture is not about providing a body to contain anything other than His blood. This is about the body of Christ being provided as a one time sacrifice of atonement. At least that is what it appears to me, taken in context.
Heb 10:3 but in those sacrifices is a remembrance of sins every year,
Heb 10:4 for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore, coming into the world, he saith, `Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will, and a body Thou didst prepare for me,
Heb 10:6 in burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offerings, Thou didst not delight,
Christ body provided to shed His blood as atonement for man's sin, not as a house for His soul.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe it is at conception. We don't have any real way to test that, but it makes sense. Conception is when a new, genetically different individual is formed.

(Christian Theology is by definition the study of God through His word, therefore we have guidelines for this forum clearly posted which state in part:

• Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.
• Opinions are plenty and have little value so please do not state positions that have no basis in scripture.

Obadiah)

 

[Sinthesis]

I believe it is at conception. We don't have any real way to test that, but it makes sense. Conception is when a new, genetically different individual is formed.

Identical twins can separate well after conception.

 

[gr8grace3]

But it doesn't say that soul [nephesh] is what is imputed by God's breath. It is the spirit/ruach.
Gen 7:22 all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [ruach]--of all that is in the dry land--have died.
Do you not see a difference between words, nephesh is not the same as ruach.
As the scriptures that I pointed out animals are also living nephesh but no where that I know of, does God say He breathed into them ruach.

You mentioned James 2:26....compare how James uses these Greek words.
Jas 2:26 for as the body apart from the spirit [pneuma] is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.
Jas 5:20 let him know that he who did turn back a sinner from the straying of his way shall save a soul [psuche] from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

I don't see how you can use Hebrews 10:5 to support your view. This scripture is not about providing a body to contain anything other than His blood. This is about the body of Christ being provided as a one time sacrifice of atonement. At least that is what it appears to me, taken in context.
Heb 10:3 but in those sacrifices is a remembrance of sins every year,
Heb 10:4 for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore, coming into the world, he saith, `Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will, and a body Thou didst prepare for me,
Heb 10:6 in burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offerings, Thou didst not delight,
Christ body provided to shed His blood as atonement for man's sin, not as a house for His soul.

The Blood of Christ points to His total work on the cross. His literal blood did not pay for the sins of the whole world. His substitutional spiritual death paid for the sins of the world.

He was still alive and full of blood when He said," It is finished."

It was His soul that paid the price,"My God,my God, why have you forsaken Me?"

90% od Christians or better have never heard of Christs Substitutionary spiritual death. If the physical death(which was horrible for our Lord) paid for our sins, we would not physically die.And if it was His literal Blood that paid for the sins of the world, God would of just put Him on the alter and sacrificed Him like the animals in the OT. And if the OT sacrifices pointed to His physical death, those animals would have been nailed to a cross.His physical death has great importance but it did not provide salvation for men. His spiritual death did. He saved us from our spiritual death.

Gen 2:17~~New American Standard Bible
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

But look at the YLT's version. You will see 2 deaths in their translation. And in the original Hebrew there are 2 deaths in this verse. Adam died spiritually the instant He ate of the fruit. He physically died many years later.

Gen 2:17~~Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

Psalm 22:1 (NASB95)
1 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.....

Mark 15:33 notes The 3 hours of darkness when the Father had to forsake the Son because He had the sins of the world laid upon Him. For He is Holy and can have no part of sin, Psalm 22:3.This is Christs substitutionary spiritual death. He was alive when He said,"It is finished" and He still had a lot of blood and serum in Him when they pierced His side after He was dead. John 19:34


Isaiah 53:11As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

 

[Deborah13]

layers. they are quoting the bible when they say that. I would have to find that. if you are going to imply that we are in his image then what is the image of god then? a spiritual thing or a fleshly image. biblically its the merits of god that are as such:

1)mercy
2) anger in a holy context
3) love
4) grace
5) compassion
6) the ability to create
7) sense of justice

an animal will have some of that. my dog has sensed both my wife and myself emotional state and has comforted us. when I was depressed, I would wake up to throw papers and at the end of the bed there would be my dog. when im not she doesn't do that. but why that is for another thread.

if you are going to take the image of god as you do then what is it? flesh? God literally in heaven has arms?

I never stated how I took the image of God, you are assuming from something else that I said. This is how I believe we are created in the image of God.
God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Man is Soul, Body, Spirit
1Th 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit [pneuma], and soul [psuche], and body [soma], be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;
I believe we can somewhat apply these Greek words to the Hebrew words ruach, nephesh, and basar.

I would say that what you listed is the nature, natural attributes, of God. I don't believe that these are the natural attributes of mankind.

So I believe that is the real question is, when is life body, soul, and spirit?

 

[OzSpen]

From the viewpoint of most of evangelical Christianity, which considers any miscarriage or abortion to be the death of a human being.


Actually, #2 has various views. Some believe the soul is imputed early, while others believe the soul is imputed at or very near birth. That is my view. No other view makes Biblical sense.

You've provided no statistical evidence for 'most of evangelical Christianity'. That seems to be your opinion.

As for 'no other view makes Biblical sense' than #2, 'The creation theory', if I have the time this weekend, I'll provide some biblical evidence in support of #3, the Traducian theory, which I consider has some biblical validity. But right now I don't have the time to give information as I prepare for church on this Sunday morning Down Under.

 

[FreeGrace]

But it doesn't say that soul [nephesh] is what is imputed by God's breath. It is the spirit/ruach.
Gen 7:22 all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [ruach]--of all that is in the dry land--have died.
Do you not see a difference between words, nephesh is not the same as ruach.

Throughout the Bible, we see an overlap between soul and spirit. Although I do believe there is a difference. In fact, what died "on that day" when Adam ate of the fruit, it was his spirit that died.

As the scriptures that I pointed out animals are also living nephesh but no where that I know of, does God say He breathed into them ruach.

Correct. God does not impute souls to animals.

You mentioned James 2:26....compare how James uses these Greek words.
Jas 2:26 for as the body apart from the spirit [pneuma] is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.
Jas 5:20 let him know that he who did turn back a sinner from the straying of his way shall save a soul [psuche] from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

OK.

I don't see how you can use Hebrews 10:5 to support your view. This scripture is not about providing a body to contain anything other than His blood.

What??! Jesus had a fully human body. And not "just for His blood". Apparently you hold to some mystical view about His blood. Well, the phrase "blood of Christ" is used in Scripture figuratively for the death that He died on behalf of mankind. There is no spiritual significance to the fluid that ran through His arteries and veins. 2

This is about the body of Christ being provided as a one time sacrifice of atonement. At least that is what it appears to me, taken in context.
Heb 10:3 but in those sacrifices is a remembrance of sins every year,
Heb 10:4 for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore, coming into the world, he saith, `Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will, and a body Thou didst prepare for me,
Heb 10:6 in burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offerings, Thou didst not delight,
Christ body provided to shed His blood as atonement for man's sin, not as a house for His soul.

Well, this comports exactly with Phil 2:6-8
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God athing to be grasped, 7but
emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It seems you are disregarding His physical body. He had one, for sure. Nail and spear scarred, even in His resurrection body.

 

[FreeGrace]

I believe it is at conception. We don't have any real way to test that, but it makes sense. Conception is when a new, genetically different individual is formed.

How does it make sense, when God's ORDER for the first Adam (Gen 2:7) and the Last Adam (Heb 10:5) was to prepare a body BEFORE imputing the soul?

And what is the purpose of imputing a soul into a fertilized egg, which isn't even a body yet?

Since God's order for the first and Last Adam was to prepare a body before imputing the soul, it makes sense that His plan for the rest of mankind would be the same order. No reason for reversing that order.

 

[FreeGrace]

You've provided no statistical evidence for 'most of evangelical Christianity'. That seems to be your opinion.

Is there evidence that most of evangelical Christianity thinks the soul is imputed at birth, then? What's your point here?

As for 'no other view makes Biblical sense' than #2, 'The creation theory', if I have the time this weekend, I'll provide some biblical evidence in support of #3, the Traducian theory, which I consider has some biblical validity. But right now I don't have the time to give information as I prepare for church on this Sunday morning Down Under.

I will refute the Traducian theory from Scripture.

 

[jasonc]

I never stated how I took the image of God, you are assuming from something else that I said. This is how I believe we are created in the image of God.
God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Man is Soul, Body, Spirit
1Th 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit [pneuma], and soul [psuche], and body [soma], be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;
I believe we can somewhat apply these Greek words to the Hebrew words ruach, nephesh, and basar.

I would say that what you listed is the nature, natural attributes, of God. I don't believe that these are the natural attributes of mankind.

So I believe that is the real question is, when is life body, soul, and spirit?

I must disagree. the body, does it have a mind that without the spirit that works? the trinity are three separate persons that have a unity in thought and function at times. we don't work like that.

remember that greek is very different in that it doesn't translate well from the Hebrew. ie ruach=pneuma. pneuma means wind or air. the Hebrew word for air isn't ruach.pone also translate to ruach as well. pone is the word for spirit. either way a good question for stovebolts.

I could add that in sheol and hades of the myths of greeks both didn't have the idea of the spirits there being much able to feel or do much. im not saying that is right but something to consider when we discuss this. I know the jews say without the body the soul cant relate to the real world. in the other worlds that might be said differently that is why I see the soul as having clothes as the jews say.

(A&T guidelines state in part: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." If you are going to state that you disagree, you have to cite what scripture supports your disagreement. Obadiah.)

 

[OzSpen]

From the viewpoint of most of evangelical Christianity, which considers any miscarriage or abortion to be the death of a human being.


Actually, #2 has various views. Some believe the soul is imputed early, while others believe the soul is imputed at or very near birth. That is my view. No other view makes Biblical sense.

FG,

The biblical evidence for the Traducian theory with answers to some objections is in Henry C Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp, 165-167, for which there is access online. See HERE. That will get us started with the biblical evidence until I'm able to interact further.