SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Questions of life and breath and Spirit

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Now we have to make all this jibe with the incarnation. In both cases we must conclude that whether it be 'body' or 'soul' the Sin (original sin) cannot be transmitted through the mother. Yet we know that our Lord was preexistent. In this case we may loose some parallels between Christ and us. He was made 'like' unto His brethren and again... a body thou hast prepared me. Notice that He did not say "a 'soul' thou hast prepared me." Yet Aaron was "... in the loins of his father...", not his mother when Melchezidek met Abram. This seems to indicate that the soul must somehow be derived from the fathers. They are "yet in the loins of their father..." In the case of THE Father- Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit. I don't take heed to generational curses and the like, but I recall the passage saying God would visit the iniquity of the fathers..., not the mothers. Yet in some sense the mother has a role to play in this also.



hi Robert
I think this is going too far with evidence we have at hand. What would you make of the Ezekiel 19 passages of the lioness who passed her nature on to her two sons, and the powerful statementEzek. 19:10 Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/18 18:22Profile









 Re: Questions of life and breath and Spirit - the baby

Quote:
When do you see the fertilized ovum as 'the baby'?



After 13 weeks, when it appears to be perfectly formed outwardly, it is no longer referred to as the fetus. From the 14th week quickening (movement) may be detected by the mother.

The earliest I have heard of a baby surviving outside the womb, is 22 weeks of gestation. At this stage though, the eyelids are not yet separated and [i]many[/i] practical hurdles lie ahead.

It used to be from 28 weeks that a baby was considered potentially viable, but this may have been reduced to 24 or 26 weeks in some countries. (If a baby dies in the womb before this stage, it is a type of spontaneous abortion (of which there are several). If it dies afterwards, it is an intrauterine death, or, if after a live birth - a neonatal death.)

Bearing in mind that pregnancy should last 40 - 41 weeks, even as late as 38 weeks, a baby can have difficulty with sucking. The ideal window to be born is roughly 10 days either side of the due date, when everything should work spontaneously and the contents of the skull are protected by adequate but not too much ossification of the bones. (Abnormal aspects of pregnancy or labour, always add postnatal problems.)

Because of the multitude of difficulties in attendance, any baby born before 37 weeks is considered [i]premature[/i]. It is prone to birth injury, difficulties with breathing and temperature regulation, feeding and blood sugar control, resisting infection, poor physical tone and low birth weight. The possibility of a lingering heart murmur is increased.

Occasionally, a very small and premature baby seems to undergo a unique combination of stresses which have assisted in maturing the lungs prematurely, and it survives with only tube feeding of mother's milk, but this is [i]rare[/i]. Neonatology as a recognised science is now, only about a 100 years old.

Without good prenatal care and the option of surgery, babies die. And mothers die. The saving of a mother's life, so she may care for her other children, is the reason instruments were ever developed to remove the contents of the womb, if this becomes the last resort in labour, (which of course it still does in many countries).

I have given this small amount of detail, to emphasise the value of 'fulness of time' in bringing a baby to birth successfully.

 2005/7/18 20:14
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Ron,

Quote:
What would you make of the Ezekiel 19 passages of the lioness who passed her nature on to her two sons, and the powerful statement
Ezek. 19:10 Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.



I was thinking about this also. I think we see it clearly in the passage I quoted, "...Like mother like daughter..." Personally I am undecided and am glad you rang in with some input. This is a terrible conversation to try to conduct alone.

It seems that the traducian view makes the most sense until we have to grapple with its ramifications on the incarnation. My point being, (and this is one of my other views) that God selected Mary as a holy woman of God who had a heart to serve God as the female contribution to the soul. The problem with this view is its ramifications on preexistence.

Any thoughts?




_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/19 9:10Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi dorcas,

Quote:
After 13 weeks, when it appears to be perfectly formed outwardly, it is no longer referred to as the fetus. From the 14th week quickening (movement) may be detected by the mother.



I don't know if you read my theory on the role of the soul in involuntary bodily functions? Would you concur that if the mind is essentially resident in the soul and that voluntary bodily functions (actions) originate in the soul that the involuntary functions (that which controls heartbeat, breathing, etc) are also resident in the soul?

Thanks,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/19 9:14Profile









 Re: Questions of life and breath and Spirit

Quote:
It seems that the traducian view makes the most sense until we have to grapple with its ramifications on the incarnation. My point being, (and this is one of my other views) that God selected Mary as a holy woman of God who had a heart to serve God as the female contribution to the soul. The problem with this view is its [b]ramifications on preexistence[/b].

Robert,

I suggest there is a strong connection between the body of a person and the 'immaterial' existence of its functions from life through to after death, which may be termed 'soul'.

As [i]sin[/i] is a spiritual condition which is clearly a function of flesh before it is put to death in Christ, and there is 'spirit' which gives life to flesh in a physical sense, (which is not put to death in Christ) I associate the sinfulness of a [i]soul[/i] with the spiritual condition of the flesh (body, in which it co-exists with physical life).

This can be put to death in Christ [i]by choice[/i] and (the soul) brought to LIFE by the Holy Spirit (who fellowships with the spirit which gives living existence to the physical body and therefore, the soul).

That a body may sin, may give a home to other spirits, and even may be seriously influenced by souls with whom it spends time, influence a 'soul' in ways which are able to be [i]undone[/i] by the work of Christ.

In considering 'the Word became Flesh', if Paul could say

1 Cor 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: [b]else were your children unclean; but now are they holy[/b].

how much more would being 'overshadowed' by 'the Almighty' be able to make HOLY the 'seed of the woman' (Mary)?

'The life is in the blood', I understand as having to do with the spiritual state of the body. That is, there was LIFE in the blood of Jesus both when He walked the earth and when He died, but, sinful man does not have LIFE in his blood. By faith, LIFE through the Spirit IS REAL to us and [i]definitely[/i] affects our bodies if we allow it to affect our choices of thought and action. It gives LIFE to the soul. But, it cannot make our flesh bodies live forever as they are, something which we come to [i]appreciate[/i]. :-P

EDIT: On pre-existence, therefore, until the Word became Flesh - Man - He did not have 'soul'.

I may have to come back to this statement but, any pre-existence we have is as [u]spirit[/u] not [i]soul[/i], and how we deal with our sin-producing flesh, determines the eternal future of our [u]souls[/u].

Do this and my next post deal completely enough with your question about voluntary and involuntary processes?

 2005/7/19 11:46









 Re: Questions of life and breath and Spirit - on sex and gender

Quote:
the female contribution to the soul.

For those reading who may be unsure.... One of the last processes undergone by the single cells which are called 'sperm' and 'ovum' (egg) (before they can combine with each other successfully) happens before they get a chance to meet. (This process is called [i]maturation[/i].)

[b]The 46 chromosomes[/b] (- complete genetic blueprint in every cell in us all -) contained in each would-be reproductive cell, [b]halve in number[/b], so there are now only 23 chromosomes in each (sperm and egg (ovum)).

(This is traditionally described in a picture as 'like dividing a ladder along its length'. It is at this stage, extra fragments of chromosome - sometimes a whole chromosome - can be retained by one or the other, (which it should not), which, when combined with the other 23 of the opposite reproductive cell, now add up to more than 46 (in the fertilised ovum). Not all of these abnormal combinations are incompatible with life.)

Of the 23 from the mother, the chromosome defining sex in the ovum will [i]always[/i] be an X. A sperm, though, may carry an X (thus the fertilised ovum will now carry XX for a female child) - or a Y (thus the fertilised ovum will carry XY for a male child). Therefore, it is the father's contribution to the 46 in the fertilised ovum, which determines the sex of the child.

Therefore also, the mother of a child brings a female influence from both her father and her mother and there is no way of knowing except by facial appearance or chromosomal analysis, whether the X she supplied to a girl child (or a boy child), was from her mother or her father. However, her [i]soul[/i] while she is carrying a baby, may bear an influence on her offspring, I think.

I would carefully divide 'female' 'male' (sex) and 'feminine' 'masculine' (gender), too, as while no-one can affect physical femaleness or maleness, masculinity and femininity can be engendered by conscious (and unconscious) influences from within and without the child.

The latter (masculinity and femininity), influenced by hormones and spirit, also may affect the function of the physical body. (This may be simplistically expressed here, but are key thoughts, as ideally, the balance of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' in a man or a woman, is not at variance with the maleness or femaleness of their body.)

 2005/7/19 12:08









 Re:

Quote:
We know that the 'life' of the flesh is in the blood. This is a hard saying. It seems refer to the blood as being vital to the vitality and animation of the body by the soul.

6) We know that breathing through the lungs is not essential for 'animation.' This is proven scripturally when John leaped in the womb of his mother before he had first drawn a breath in this life. From this we must conclude- that though "breathing creature" is the literal translation of "living soul" the breath must only reside in the blood and can be transmitted through the blood from mother to child through the placenta. one need not breath through the lungs to be a live soul.



Luke 1:41
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:

Luke 1:44
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Apparently, the ear is the organ functioning most completely (I do not say perfectly.) from earliest in pregnancy - before 6 weeks. I don't know how this has been ascertained, but, it is an explanation for the babe leaping at the [i][b]sound[/b][/i] of Mary's voice.

It could also be a natural response to the joy in Elisabeth's soul, that the babe leaped.

'and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost' might also be a reason for the baby to leap. I believe it was around 26 weeks gestation by now, so, quite a head-butt!

I am suggesting though, that these may be reflex, rather than by [i]choice[/i]. I am also suggesting that the 'life' of the mother - of her spirit in her body - is [i]extended[/i] to support the 'life' in the flesh of the baby in the womb.


 2005/7/19 12:24
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi dorcas,

Quote:
(This is traditionally described in a picture as 'like dividing a ladder along its length'. It is at this stage, extra fragments of chromosome - sometimes a whole chromosome - can be retained by one or the other, (which it should not), which, when combined with the other 23 of the opposite reproductive cell, now add up to more than 46 (in the fertilised ovum). Not all of these abnormal combinations are incompatible with life.)



So the traducian version of this would be some sort of 'soul DNA' being split from each parent to join into one again- independent of the two from which this new soul has sprung? It would seem that this process would have to take place at the exact same time as the two combining strands of physical DNA combine? If that were so then it seems logical that the soul must be present in order for any physical functions beyond that initial transfer to have function. In other words if there is a heart beat of any kind- there has to be an underlying soul controlling the rythem.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/19 13:18Profile









 Re: Questions of life and breath and Spirit - the soul and its sin

RobertW said

Quote:
Would you concur that if the mind is essentially resident in the soul and that voluntary bodily functions (actions) originate in the soul that the involuntary functions (that which controls heartbeat, breathing, etc) are also resident in the soul?

I would put this a different way: that the brain is a function of the body [i]all of which[/i] [u]impress[/u] the soul with its mind and memory.

Quote:
If we say that the soul comes directly from God at birth we are left to make God the author of sin. We know God would not create something sinful.

Can you see that if the soul is somehow derived from the body (flesh), God Himself is not implicated in its sinfulness?

 2005/7/19 13:19
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I am suggesting though, that these may be reflex, rather than by choice. I am also suggesting that the 'life' of the mother - of her spirit in her body - is extended to support the 'life' in the flesh of the baby in the womb.



So are you suggesting here that the baby is functioning off of the mother's soul? It seems likely that the babies soul would be fully developed into its functionality before the body as it would be foundational to the body. I am suggesting here that the baby must be built upon the foundation of his/her own soul and that that soul must be complete before the body can rest upon it (so to speak). In other words without a fully developed soul- the body cannot survive. And though I would concur that the reactions of the child may have been a reflex- I think it only strengthens the view that a soul is present to process the stimuli and then [i]react[/i] to it. One need not be conscious to react to stumuli- only alive. Fire on the foot of a sleeping man will wake him to consciousness. The whole process with not be of choice- but a natural reflex.

Any thoughts?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/19 13:26Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy