Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
The sould doesn't propagate; the soul is created at the moment of conception.
Jesus' human soul was created like everyone else's.
Thanks for all your pings one and all . . .
Heading for a men’s retreat Friday and then up into Colorado until Tue/Wed next week to meet another Freeper’s parents.
May not have any compputer access until I get back.
Blessings this weekend and coming week.
(1) Where are you getting this from? Could you share your source? I have honestly never heard of this being a modern Jewish belief. I do know, as I mentioned earlier, that the Pharisee sect believed in pre-existence of the souls under heavy Hellenistic influence of neo-Platonism (for instance Philo of Alexandria believed in it). I was under the impression that the post-Jamnia rabbinical Judaism rejected all outside influences (save for Babylonian dualism).
This is important and your sharing this will be much appreciated.
It just so happens that in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Slavonic, the word for soul is a feminine-gender word, but in Slavonic, for example, so is bone, or door. They are all referred to as "she."
In German, the mouse is a neutral-gender word, just as the house. In English, word-genders actually assign gender to the object of the word. Thus a ship is often referred to as "she" and a snake or a fly is a "he." That doesn't mean a partiocular snake or a fly is necessarily "male," nor is a ship "female."
Moreover, in German, definite article (die, der, das -- pron. dee, dehr, dahss, corresponding to female, male and neutral gender) are also gender-word! Thus when you say "I am in school" (school is die schule, or feminine geneder-word) the article changes from feminine-gender to masculine-gender to "Ich bin in der schule because it is also a propositional article, indicating a dative case.
Thank you Q. I hope you get to read my reply before you leave. I hope you enjoy your trip. be safe. We will look forward to your coming posts.
May God bless you.
END TIMES PING LIST PING FOR PRAYER FOR JIMROB AND FR RE GLOBALIST SPIRITUAL FORCES ANGRY ABOUT RUDY etc.
Kosta: Thanks tons and bless you all hereon.
I may be on some tomorrow between finishing getting ready to leave tomorrow afternoon.
I just wanted to be sure and let you dearest folks know and not forget in tomorrow’s rush.
BTW, ALL, I believe that JimRob’s wonderful stand against the GOP globalist front runner Rudy is going to likely end up triggering lots of spiritual warfare against him and FR. I encourage all hereon to pray extra . . . and keep praying extra between now and the election.
We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. Things look all set to get curiouser and curiouser. I think God has more things up His bigger sleeves than the enemy has up his. But prayers are essential.
I think we need to particularly pray for the following for JimRob, FR and all FREEPERS who earnestly Love God
1. Safety—going out; coming in; downsitting; uprising; working; resting; playing; eating; traveling.
2. Provision—finances, wisdom, redundant + resilient + well protected + robust + super durable + . . . . COMPUTING RESOURCES perhaps in multiple locations; Intimacy with God; Guidance; Joy, Peace . . .
3. Prayer warriors to join and follow through for the long haul.
4. Holy Spirit provided strategies to do God’s work in behalf of God’s Kingdom, FR and our country in the midst of an increasingly hostile-to-God-and-conservatives environment Nationally.
5. Allies to join FR who are well provisioned with connections, smarts, resources, skills to help us amplify our efforts to get the job done.
6. Whatever may be needed of the FREEPERS in Fresno to support and help protect JimRob and family.
7. A sense of unity and community that majors in very close knit ways on major issues, values, priorities and does not allow minor things to divide us or our efforts.
Am not trying to be overly alarmist. But I scanned through 3,500 or so of the posts on the Rudy etc. socialist thread that’s now up to 18,000+ posts. And a very increasingly strong feeling while doing so was that Jim was very right to post the thread and weed out. AND that the forces of darkness are not going to take our efforts lying down. We MUST be wise, prepared and ENGAGED in the battle EARLIEST AND BESTEST.
And even then, man was not really created until God breathed the soul through man's nostrils. So, there was a deifnite time, not before all ages, when man was not and his soul was not. The same goes for all of us.
2. That God did not “think it out” before He said “let there be Light.” Indeed, Isaiah 46:9-10 says He declares the end from the beginning. How is that not “thinking it out?”
3. That God’s breathing (neshama) into Adam’s nostrils in Genesis 2 took place on Day 6 of creation week. There is a timing anamoly between Genesis 1 and 2, e.g. Genesis 2 declares that God created the plants before they were in the earth. Also, the plants are created on Day 3 but there is no sun or moon until Day 4. Likewise, it is a presumption to say that the men created on Day 6 were entirely Adam and Eve and their descendants (Genesis 2).
4. That Genesis 2 and 3 are speaking of events “in” the physical realm. Truly, the leaning I have in the spirit is that Genesis 1-3 speaks to the creation of both the physical and the spiritual and that Adam was created in the spiritual realm (which is not spatially separated from the physical realm) and was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3, the countdown for Adamic man beginning in Genesis 4.
4. That God unfolded Creation serially to the conscious within the timeline specified in Creation week. That is to say, like we would do things “in” space/time not knowing the next step until the current step is finished – cause/effect in a directional arrow of time. There is no reason to presume that God does not possess all of His own breath (neshama) in timelessness and dispenses it into Adamic men "in" space/time according to His will, e.g. at conception or through inheritance from Adam.
2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)
3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"
4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)
And I pray for you a blessed trip, dear brother in Christ!
Yes, that is an excellent point. I fully agree. A works-based salvation is completely dismissed in the NT, and yet here we are 2,000 years later with more than a billion Christians believing in it.
Amen. Absolutely true.
Thanks.
Sure felt that way in my spirit when my fingers typed it.
LUB
THANKS TONS AND TONS on all counts.
Happy . . . not holding the fort . . . sallying forth?
Post #13,844 and #13,897 are two different arguments. In post #13,844 you are discussing traducianism/creationism, or whether souls are created or propagated. In this post you argued that souls are propagated-not created. In post #13,897 you are dealing with the trichotomy/dichotomy argument, which deals with whether man has a “body, soul and spirit” or just a “body and soul”. I’m not going to discuss the trichotomy/dichotomy views simply because I don’t think there is enough evidence to discuss the point either way. However, one should be able to understand very clearly that the traducianism/creationism and the trichotomy/dichotomy arguments are two different and completely separate issues.
My post was in regards to your traducianism/creationism argument in post #13,844. You made a statement that it is Gnostic and pagan to believe in the pre-existent theory. Yet when provided scriptural evidence (such as Ecc 12) to the contrary it is ignored. God breathed into Adam his soul, meaning that Adam soul must have existed before Adam existed. Christ’s soul existed prior to His birth-it must have since there are multiple examples in the Old Testament of Christ’s appearances (such as Melchizedek).
Why this is such an important issue is that you would have us believe that the creator of souls is man. One would hope they would see the error of this since God created ALL things. Man does not create anything-through propagation or otherwise.
I am not a student of Origen, but a reading of what he taught states that he “espoused a Platonic view of eternal souls achieving perfection while escaping the temporary, imperfect material world. He imagined even demons being reunited with God.” Quite frankly, this sounds like a variation of the Catholic view of purgatory. And, not to offend, but isn’t the Orthodox view one of man getting more and more like Christ as he sheds off the things of this world? This sound far more in keeping with Origen’s view than us “westerners”.
No theory, anabaptists were being persecuted by every State/Church setup, including 'Protestant' ones.
There have always been Christians outside of the control of the power of the State-Church system, relying on what the Bible taught, not man's traditions backed by State power.
“Second, Rome did as you state, hold the primary role among the areas established by Constantine after he ‘legalized’ it.”
No, Rome’s primacy long preexisted Constantine. The legalization of The Church by the emperor neither added to nor detracted from the Church of Rome’s position. However, Constantine’s establishment of the seat of the empire at Constantinople did indeed detract from Rome’s position and benefited that of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Rome was not highly esteemed by Christians.
Antioch had the much higher claim for leading Christianity than did Rome.
Rome only grew in its power when it was backed by the State.
“Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its ‘Roman wing’ with it.”
This has already been dealt with. If you are speaking of the institution of a state church, like we see today or have seen since about 1400, that didn’t exist in the 4th century. In fact, there were a number of schismatic groups around throughout antiquity which worshipped quite freely and openly, with their own churches and hierarchies. In the east what we now call the Orthodox Church did indeed become a state church before the Mohammedan conquest, but, outside of Russia in the high middle ages and later, it hardly had an exclusive, enforced franchise on religious expression, unlike what happened in the West.
That's why Christians say that Romanism began in the 4th century.
We don't say that it existed as it did in the later centuries when it conciliated its power and attempted to eliminate those 'schismatic' groups.
” Actually, the ‘Byzantine’ wing (Eastern) began breaking with Rome.(Western) almost immediately. Why? Because you did not like the idea of the Roman Pope telling you what to do”
You are speaking of two different things here. The quote from the GOA website explains it pretty well from an Orthodox pov. At base, when the Great Schism finally happened, it was pretty much for the reason you stated. Orthodoxy would have none of what it then perceived to be Roman imposed heresies and distorted ecclesiology. As far as the East was concerned, The Church of Rome left The Church. Rome of course disagrees and disagreed.
Well, that sounds like the same reason that the Protestant Reformation broke out!
The point that the article from your Orthodox website was making is that the 'break' began almost immediately in the 4th century.
So 'Romanism' was already attempting to exert it primacy over the whole of the Roman Empire.
Thus, your denial of the fact that I expressed, that Romanism began with the Church/State combination in the 4th century is refuted by your own Orthodox history.
“As for your opinions on Christian disagreements with Romanism, I could care less, since your ‘Church’ is as ‘spiritually dead’ as they are.”
I have thought long and hard about whether to respond to this expression of hatred. I really have nothing to say expect to observe that your remark seems pretty representative of Western non-Roman attitudes (with some glaring exceptions) towards Orthodoxy I have experienced here on FR, especially on this thread.
You should have thought long and hard before you posted your initial post.
So far, I haven't seen one Orthodox adherent show anything but contempt for any of us you consider to be 'Protestants'.
It is clear that your theology is far closer to the Romanists than it is to that of Biblical Christianity.
You entered into a discussion I was having with a RC, with a haughty and smug attitude.
I would like to remind you that no Protestants killed Orthodox followers, but Rome did.
Christians may speak bluntly, but we have never waged war on your faith.
Rome has waged war on us both, yet your hatred is so great for Justification by faith alone that you would side with those who killed Orthodox followers, ( who believe in a works system of salvation, as you do), in attacking Christians.
In fact, your attitude is no different than the Pharisee's and Sadducee's of the Lord's day, who though bitter enemies, united together against the one who is the Truth.(Jn.14:6)
I didn't say that every Roman Catholic or Orthodox follower was spiritually dead.
Some may be saved, if they believed the true Gospel(justification by faith alone in Christ alone), and are not depending on the teachings (works) of their Church to save them.
The doctrines of both Churches are dead, depending on the traditons of men, rather than the words of God (Mk.7:7-10).
Any 'Church' that has idols and monks is a dead 'Church' and the home of Satan, not of God.(Rev.2:20-24)
Forth, Do you know what a "Church" is? It is a community of believers. Not a building. Not a denomination. It is the individuals of the community. Thus, when you say
"your 'Church' is as 'spiritually dead as they are"
You are saying the entire community is spiritually dead. Is that the wisest thing to say? I don't think so. I think such comments demand at least an apology and a clarification.
The doctrines of both Churches are dead, depending on the traditons of men, rather than the words of God (Mk.7:7-10).
That is your personal opinions, which, quite frankly, totally ignores YOUR traditions of men, such as Sola Scriptura, an invention of MEN of the 1500's that ironically is not found in the Bible anywhere, and Sola Fide, an invention of MEN of the 1500's that is DENIED EXPLICITLY in the Bible, in particular, James 2.
Don't bother with your lame explanations. I've heard them and I am not in the mood to get sick on a weekend...
Look to the beam in your eye, forth, look to the beam...
Regards
Demostrably false. As a parent, I am not obligated in any way by my child's behavior; I choose, however, to match my rewards and punishments to what the child actually does, because I love my child. There is no mystery in this.
As a Catholic, I am a Bible literalist. There is enough hierarchy preached in the Bible itself for me to discard it, quite apart from the historical evidence of hierarchical eucharistic Church as tthe only church there ever was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.