Featured The Sanctity of Life...Body,Spirit, and Soul

Great. Now all you need is Scripture to support that.

Romans 5:12
King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


A "living soul" is no different than when God created Adam, who, after receiving a spirit and a body, became a living soul.

That is the point, Happy: man is born dead, spiritually, having only physical life.

Man has no life until he is regenerate, which is the time in which they are placed in union with God (Who is Life) through Christ.

You are failing to distinguish between physical and spiritual life.

Great, now all you need is Scripture to support that.

Again, Adam did not receive a living soul...he became one.

No argument there, lol.


God bless.

 

As well, as already pointed out, that God views the life in the womb as an individual life, requiring Life for Life if that life is terminated.

Doesn't need to, because there is a difference, also already pointed out, between the creative formation of the first man...and procreation.

Secondly, there is a distinction made in Scripture between Adam and those born under the curse. Man comes into this world now in a fallen state, so a comparison between how Adam was formed and how babies are formed is moot.

What is not moot is the fact that you have adopted a liberal view, and because of this you must incessantly argue what is basic in Scripture.

If what has been said already cannot compel you to be direct about what is written, it is doubtful anything can.

You still ignore the simple fact that if the baby dies, the offender's own life is forfeit. That creates an equality between the life that is in the womb and the life of the offender.

That's just the fact that will destroy the liberal, child murdering doctrine of Liberals.


God bless.

 

The unborn child is central because that is one of the primary issues of the OP.

This is not a thread about the fears of those who do not see that "the End" is already written, and it will be controlled by God...not man. So no efforts of preserving the earth need be a topic of discussion in a thread dealing with Biblical Doctrine.

So relax about radiation.

This is also not a thread about a Democratic and Liberal view of Trump, who, unlike Hitler, has a concern for people who are being gassed by their own leaders.

While I would love to discuss the hypocrisy of Liberals, who whine about collusion with Russia, yet say not a word when their puppet president, on national television, says "I will have more leeway when the election is over," the fact is...

...the issues being discussed by the OP are far more relevant, and will help liberals come to a better understanding of the Bible they profess to believe in, all the while murdering infants and defending the rights of homosexuals.
.

The simple fact is that God...will not have mercy on all.

Read Revelation.

Another simple fact is that believers are a minority in this world, always have been, always will be, so my suggestion is...throw off the fears of the world. Instead of worrying that somehow man is going to supersede Biblical Prophecy and destroy the world before God gets the chance to fulfill Prophecy...find out what is actually going to happen. It's right there in the Word of GOd.


God bless.

 

Show me in Scripture where man "receives a living soul." I know of only one text that even comes close to that, and that does not alleviate the problem of the many passages that make it clear that "soul" is a reference to a person in their totality.

And you can save yourself some time in posting repeats of what you have already stated which has been addressed.


God bless.

 

Darrell C said: ↑

Again...you still overlook the fact that Life for Life is invoked.

It is true, lol. It's right there:


Exodus 21:22-25

King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


It's really a very simple concept. If a man hits another, and knocks out his tooth, that man's tooth is forfeit. IF a man causes the death of another, that man's own life is forfeit.

Just not that hard to understand, Happy.


God bless.

 

Darrell C said: ↑

More irrelevancy.

This is about as absurd an argument as I think I have run across in a while. And for what? To support a Liberal view?

I agree, I was referring to a completely irrelevant statement in response to what I said:

Really? I thought they were "gifts" for the "earthly parents" to be temporary stewards of those gifts.[/QUOTE]

The argument that a child is dependent on the mother and how that is relevant to the child being a unique life has nothing to do with whether a child is a gift from God or not.

That is the Liberal inflection which seeks to give a mother a "right" over the very life of the child.

No mother has the right to take the life of the child God has given here...for any reason.

No, it is, like everything else I have addressed, a direct response to this liberal nonsense that refuses to acknowledge a pretty simple concept found throughout Scripture.

God is clear in regards to men killing men, despite age or gender (and there are only two, by the way).


God bless.

 

Now let's examine the basis of your syllogistic conclusion:

Show me "thing" in the original text, then, show me why we would take a modern application of an English Word, insert it into a text...then build secular philiosohy from it.

We would only do that if we were trying to support a Liberal Position of the Secular World.

You may not believe me, Happy, but this is precisely what you are doing.

See the link. It will help you, Happy.

That is p[precisely what you are teaching:

I have already quoted you concerning this, and you still deny Life for Life, because Liberal philosophy depends on it.

As I said, one can receive a transfusion and not lose his "life." Nor does he gain the personality or character of the one the blood comes from.

While it is true that if a man's blood is depleted, his physical life will end, that does not mean that the man ends. THis is the point of Matthew 10:28.

Again...man is not born with Life:


John 6:53
King James Version (KJV)

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


He has physical life only, Happy.

Eternal Life is the Life of God which began...after Pentecost:


John 7:38-39
King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

"Forever life," or, eternal or everlasting life...is the result of regeneration, which takes place when a man is baptized with the Holy Ghost, which is to say, when a man is immersed into God, which is to say, when men are reconciled to God.

Again, irrelevant, because a baby remains dependent for years.

You can deny that the babe in the womb is a unique person, a life of their own, but...the Word of God does not:


Luke 1:41-42
King James Version (KJV)

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.


The question we have to ask is...why would you want to?


God bless.

 

Darrell C said: ↑

What "changes in the body?"

Could you please provide a Scriptural basis for this statement?

There is no "new body" for the Spirit of God to enter...He enters the one we are born with.

We have a new spirit and new heart, not because God needs something "to go into," but we have a new heart and spirit because God enters into us.

Again...where is your Scripture?

Support your statement.

Scripture?

Scripture?

Again, where you are making a mistake is in not distinguishing between physical and spiritual life, then, to add to that, the distinction between spiritual life being Eternal or not.

All men have a body, all men have a spirit, and all men are living souls (which applies whether they are physically alive or not). However, not all men have Eternal Life, we are in fact born without life, because we are born separated from God.


God bless.

 

That's not really the point, because I do believe a "soul" requires "restoring," the restoration being to a relationship with God, which a person is born without.

Think about it Happy: if God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself...when did that begin?

You can replace "soul" with "person" and understand most texts in that perspective, and keep the original understanding of what is being said. When a "soul went down into the grave" in view is not the immaterial aspect of that person going into a physical grave, it is simply a way to say...they died.

A "saint" (in a context dealing with believers, the term is also used of Angels) is a believer, one who belongs to God, not...a born again believer. In other words, a Saint in the Old Testament should not be equated with a Saint in the New in regards to Revelation and Regeneration.

Abraham did not place his faith in Christ Jesus, for example, he did not trust that Christ died for him. He did not receive the Spirit that Christ sent...after He returned to heaven from whence He came.

Now, to answer the question more specifically, Old Testament Saints became "saints" the same way we do...by coming to obedience to God's revelation of His will for our lives. And His will is that we come into obedience...

...to the Gospel.

Right, this speaks of the time when we are physically resurrected...not during our lifetimes. This is when our flesh is redeemed.


Here is what you said:

You imply a purity for the physical body which does not exist for those of us who are saved. We remain in fallen flesh. And will until we are resurrected at the Rapture.


God bless.

 

Just as easily understood as "He restores me." This would include the spirit of man.

Because man is a living soul that is what is restored, lol.

Right. In the rapture we will receive glorified bodies like as our Lord did in His Resurrection.

Irrelevant to the "soul." we will still be a soul at that time, not...we will have a soul, or receive a new soul.

Right, This is man doing in his own power that which he can do. The "heart" and "spirit" here refer to man's mentality, not the immaterial aspect of his being.

God would not demand something of a man he cannot perform, and it is impossible for men to give themselves a new "spirit" in an eternal sense.

Understand?

This is why Ezekiel 36:22-27 is so significant in relation to the Promises of God, for it is GOd that will perform these actions, which is consistent with salvation, which is wholly the work of Holy God.

Again, this pertains to man's performance within salvation, not something that attains salvation.

So we have to compare apples with apples, Happy.

And I am out of time, but thanks for the responses. I usually address in more detail but time is limited, and I see no point in re-posting on what has already been addressed. Hopefully the new responses will allow us to narrow the discussion to crucial points, and we can get to a more focused discussion of the "soul."


God bless.

 

First...still no Scripture.

Second, please follow proper quoting procedure. I'd hate for someone to think that was me speaking.




God bless.

 

Then explain the responses...

Show me in Scripture where a child in the womb is called a fetus. Called fruit, sure, so same first letter, same number of letters...close enough, right?

The child in the womb is dependent on the mother both before and after birth.

So God did not breathe the breath of life into...man?


Genesis 2:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Run down to the morgue and look at a few people who do not have breath, and do not have blood...still men. But what they are not are living souls. The spirit has departed from the body and that soul, that is, that person, is either in Hades or Heaven.

I will ask again:


Genesis 46:26
King James Version (KJV)

26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six;


Is the "life force" or immaterial aspect of men in view here?

Not what the text states:


Genesis 2:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Adam was man when formed, and the distinction made here is that he was alive after receiving the breath of life.

Happy, stop.

You cannot say that the unborn child is irrelevant to the text. The child is in the womb when the offense takes place.

If a miscarriage results, the child is never...born. The child never has the breath of life.

What if the child dies in the womb? That falls under further mischief, Happy.


Exodus 21:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,


"No mischief following" has a scenario where the child is born and there is no reason for life for life to be exacted. Whether the child dies (and remember the death refers to the child and the mother, the child being in the womb) or the mother dies...it is life for life.

That makes the child...a life.

If the child dies in the womb...do you think the offender is not held accountable?


God bless.

 

There is no Scripture that teaches that man "receives a living soul..

So how could you have possibly shown me the Scripture?


Genesis 2
King James Version (KJV)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This is true. You cannot understand it for yourself, much less someone else.

Great advice.

Notice Man is formed of the dust of the ground?

Doesn't say he was not yet a man, but a man.

And who is in view? Man.

Just want to point out that this is a temporal perspective, and really has no relevance to the fuller understanding we have today. The writer was not denying the resurrection of the dead, but simply speaks of man's physical death.

Notice that it does not say the "soul" returns to God?




God bless.