Do Souls Prexist?

[Benson]

One or some of the following must exist regarding the human soul:

1.) It comes into existence at the moment of meiotic inception in the womb, or in a laboratory container.

2.) It comes from another dimension or place to be inserted into the newly formed human zygote, or possibly at the first breath when birth occurs.

3.) It is a small spark of God Himself which He puts into humans when they arrive at a sentient state of accountability.

4.) Human souls exist only in humans which are chosen by God according to the integrity of their DNA.

5.) God ordains some humans shall be possessed by a prexistent nonhuman evil spirit.

Perhaps this Forum has those who claim to have knowledge of God's Omnipotence, Providence, and Love and will thereby confidently pontificate. Or, perhaps someone will arise with patronizing verbation to hide their lack of thought and information. The best answer will assuredly be germane and to the point without being dismissive or divergent.

A clue to an answer is that God "breathed into Adam" before Adam became a living soul, something not done with animals. Jesus also purposefully "breathed" upon His Disciples. As well, Mosaic Law specifies unborn children are persons to be protected. Strangely, Pagan worship sought and prioritized the sacrifice of infants, as if the infancy contained a certain aspect of being they utilized.

[Miles]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

[William]

One or some of the following must exist regarding the human soul:



1.) It comes into existence at the moment of meiotic inception in the womb, or in a laboratory container.

Unlikely, as it would be measurable using laboratory equipment. So far, nothing to report therein...

2.) It comes from another dimension or place to be inserted into the newly formed human zygote, or possibly at the first breath when birth occurs.

Like Avatar [the movie] only in the movie the soul was the human consciousness placed into the Avatar...same dimension.., but a similar idea. "The Soul" is an independent consciousness [not necessarily from another dimension] which inhabits the human form

3.) It is a small spark of God Himself which He puts into humans when they arrive at a sentient state of accountability.

An aspect of a gods [The Creator's] own Consciousness imbued into the Avatar of the human form...

4.) Human souls exist only in humans which are chosen by God according to the integrity of their DNA.

Back to the laboratory ....

5.) God ordains some humans shall be possessed by a prexistent nonhuman evil spirit.

The soul is an "evil spirit"?

Perhaps this Forum has those who claim to have knowledge of God's Omnipotence, Providence, and Love and will thereby confidently pontificate. Or, perhaps someone will arise with patronizing verbation to hide their lack of thought and information. The best answer will assuredly be germane and to the point without being dismissive or divergent.

Quite...

A clue to an answer is that God "breathed into Adam" before Adam became a living soul, something not done with animals. Jesus also purposefully "breathed" upon His Disciples. As well, Mosaic Law specifies unborn children are persons to be protected. Strangely, Pagan worship sought and prioritized the sacrifice of infants, as if the infancy contained a certain aspect of being they utilized.

Conundrum. I have heard a rumor [therefore maybe not true] sourced from same Middle Eastern Mythologies, that the god of Israel ordered babies of different race/culture to be smitten upon the rocks. Therefore are we to assume those infants "contained a certain aspect of being the god utilized" and should we assume it is only a 'pagan' act, if not done in the names of the Middle Eastern gods?

[William]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

[Miles]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

Yeah, I took a quick look at putting the two together, but didn't get anything out of it. As put by Benson, "axiomatic" works best as an adjective for "reality."


.

[Benson]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

Jesus' driving out the moneychangers from the Temple was not a contention where He argued with them. He did not bother with an "educational event," or a political move, or a "suggestion" to them, or some ultimatum. He acted. It was not two way communication, but strictly one way from Him.

[Miles]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

Jesus' driving out the moneychangers from the Temple was not a contention where He argued with them. He did not bother with an "educational event," or a political move, or a "suggestion" to them, or some ultimatum. He acted. It was not two way communication, but strictly one way from Him.

Your Bible says differently.

But first:

contentious
[ kuhn-ten-shuhs ]
adjective
tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome: a contentious crew.
causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy:

See below when this arguing and quarreling took place

Jesus Cleanses the Temple

Mark 11:15-18
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”

18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the crowd was spellbound by his teaching.

And if you think that while he was teaching, these merchants and money changers just sat their in silence without arguing back and quarreling with Jesus then you don't know much about human nature and the self-assertive character of merchants and money changers.


ADDITIONALLY, I'm still waiting to know what "axiomatic reality" is. AND what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way. Going to come through or not?


.

[Benson]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

Jesus' driving out the moneychangers from the Temple was not a contention where He argued with them. He did not bother with an "educational event," or a political move, or a "suggestion" to them, or some ultimatum. He acted. It was not two way communication, but strictly one way from Him.

Your Bible says differently.

But first:

contentious
[ kuhn-ten-shuhs ]
adjective
tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome: a contentious crew.
causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy:

See below when this arguing and quarreling took place

Jesus Cleanses the Temple

Mark 11:15-18
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”

18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the crowd was spellbound by his teaching.

And if you think that while he was teaching, these merchants and money changers just sat their in silence without arguing back and quarreling with Jesus then you don't know much about human nature and the self-assertive character of merchants and money changers.


ADDITIONALLY, I'm still waiting to know what "axiomatic reality" is. AND what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way. Going to come through or not?


.

Trying to imagine what the moneychangers and Jesus previously said to each other in the Trmple for the sake of showing contention by Jesus is a waste of time for no purpose.

Look up "axiom" in the dictionary. But, only if you want the definition. Okay?

[Miles]

You are confusing the issue with the facts. Tread carefully. Human hearts are in the balance.

Please specify what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way.

Jesus contended with no one,

If memory serves me, he had quite a contentious go-around with the merchants and dealers in some temple. Right?

but only spoke axiomatic reality.

What is "axiomatic reality." A Google search doesn't turns up a thing.


.

Axiom & Reality

Jesus' driving out the moneychangers from the Temple was not a contention where He argued with them. He did not bother with an "educational event," or a political move, or a "suggestion" to them, or some ultimatum. He acted. It was not two way communication, but strictly one way from Him.

Your Bible says differently.

But first:

contentious
[ kuhn-ten-shuhs ]
adjective
tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome: a contentious crew.
causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy:

See below when this arguing and quarreling took place

Jesus Cleanses the Temple

Mark 11:15-18
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”

18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the crowd was spellbound by his teaching.

And if you think that while he was teaching, these merchants and money changers just sat there in silence without arguing back and quarreling with Jesus then you don't know much about human nature and the self-assertive character of merchants and money changers.


ADDITIONALLY, I'm still waiting to know what "axiomatic reality" is. AND what issue and which facts I'm confusing, and in what way. Going to come through or not?


.

Trying to imagine what the moneychangers and Jesus previously said to each other in the Trmple for the sake of showing contention by Jesus is a waste of time for no purpose.

Particularly when it's detrimental to your assertion. And, of course it isn't "what" they said but how they said it that's important: Doubtlessly they would have been arguing and quarreling with Jesus while he was telling them off. .

Look up "axiom" in the dictionary. But, only if you want the definition. Okay?

I already know what "axiom" means, even "axiomatic," but *sigh* The issue isn't what "axiom" means, or what "reality" means, or what anything else except what "axiomatic reality" means, and because you refuse to tell us, obviously it's something you simply made up to sound somewhat erudite.



,

[Benson]

I do apologize for some how upsetting you.

I can understand now, given how I just read from you the great importance of "how things are said." Very sensitive hearts, as in women and children for example, choose to think in terms of:

"How Things Just Seem To Be! Tsk!"

Rather than taking an interest in facts.

[JehovahsWitness]

So JWs don't believe in any kind of resurrection at all, but rather re-creation.

In Jehovahs Witntess language "resurrection" is interpreted to mean re-creation.

....the person isn't really resurrected at all, but simply created again?

No, the person is resurrect by being re-created.

Gotta point out though that "re-creation" is not the same as "resurrection."

Gotta point out though that "re-creation" are the same as "re-surrection." (when speaking of dead people).




WHAT DOES THE WORD RESURRECTION MEAN?

The English word resurrection is translated from the Greek anastasis and literally means “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The English ( "re" meanng again "surrection" meaning "rising"). So a resurrection means standing up again. Standing up again to what? Standing up again to life, from having previously been .... dead.

Biblically death is "non-existence" thus a resurrection necessitates a re-creation making the two words near synonyms. See definitions below:

re-creation noun (MAKE AGAIN)
us/ˌriː.kriˈeɪ.ʃən/ uk/ˌriː.kriˈeɪ.ʃən/
the act of making something exist or happen again:
Source: Cambridge Dictionary
_________________________________

resurrection
[ rez-uh-rek-shuhn ]
noun
the act of rising from the dead.

Biblically if a person have ceased to exist in death, the only way to be resurrected (to live again) is to be recreated.
Hence, JWs believe in the biblical kind of resurrection which is for all intents and purposes, a "re-creation".

JW



RELATED POSTS

What is a resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p832213

If the resurrected will not have the exact same bodies, does that mean they will be "copies" of their former selves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 30#p832230

Can a resurrection be seen as a kind of recreation? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1030474#p1030474

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE HUMAN SOUL , THE CONDITION OF THE DEAD and ...RESURRECTION