Pre Mil, pre-trib (or mid trib) question

[beameup]

The things beammeup are purporting, are eerily similiar to what the pro-choicers think. FTR, I am NOT saying he is "pro-choice", just that I am thinking the "pro-choicers" would use this to try to approve abortions.

I'm not "purporting" anything except a strong Biblical foundation for this matter.

If I plant a seedling and my neighbor accidentally whacks it down, he
has not "chopped down my oak tree".

A fetus "has the potential" to become a human being with a soul, but it is NOT.

I doubt any pro-choice feminist would have any clue whatsoever as to the sound teaching from the Scriptures on this matter;
and sadly, so few Christians really clearly think-through this matter either, but are really controlled by their "emotions" and "feelings" (Carnal mind).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. - Gen 2:7

 

[Aaron]

A fetus "has the potential" to become a human being with a soul, but it is NOT.

and sadly, so few Christians really clearly think-through this matter either, but are really controlled by their "emotions" and "feelings" (Carnal mind).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. - Gen 2:7

Instruct us, O enlightened one, what is the sound teaching of Scripture on this matter?

 

[Greektim]

You might consider changing your moniker to strawman, I think that is still open.

Pray tell why would I do that??? I have asserted nothing about the way you believe and then go on to tear it down. Not in the least as you have just done.

If you have a problem w/ my first name or the Greek language I put before it when I was taking a Hebrew class which my professor needed a certain kind of email , then by all means go on sulking. Otherwise, you should ask before you accuse. My late professor thought it was pretty funny too. Thanks for playing!!!

 

[thomas15]

Pray tell why would I do that??? I have asserted nothing about the way you believe and then go on to tear it down. Not in the least as you have just done.

If you have a problem w/ my first name or the Greek language I put before it when I was taking a Hebrew class which my professor needed a certain kind of email , then by all means go on sulking. Otherwise, you should ask before you accuse. My late professor thought it was pretty funny too. Thanks for playing!!!

Nice sermon but where is the benediction? I feel cheated!

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I'm not "purporting" anything except a strong Biblical foundation for this matter.

If I plant a seedling and my neighbor accidentally whacks it down, he
has not "chopped down my oak tree".

A fetus "has the potential" to become a human being with a soul, but it is NOT.

Show me where anyone or anything merely has the "potential to become a human being" from Scripture. You cannot. That is personal opinion without a shred of Biblical support. Worse yet, it is nothing but secular humanist pablum. Your not just comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing human life to plant life. That is an desperate comparison with no Scriptural, scientific, or biological support. You have yet to post a single passage of Scripture which states that the human soul is not given until he/she passes through the birth canal.

There is not a single Scripture which states that the breath of life which God gave to Adam is given in like manner to every person born hence. Do you think God places His lips on every child at birth? The "breath of life" from God was a unique, one time occurrence which introduced life "in His own image" into the world. So far, all you've done is posted your opinions along with passages which do not say what you are claiming.

 

[convicted1]

I'm not "purporting" anything except a strong Biblical foundation for this matter.

If I plant a seedling and my neighbor accidentally whacks it down, he
has not "chopped down my oak tree".

A fetus "has the potential" to become a human being with a soul, but it is NOT.

I doubt any pro-choice feminist would have any clue whatsoever as to the sound teaching from the Scriptures on this matter;
and sadly, so few Christians really clearly think-through this matter either, but are really controlled by their "emotions" and "feelings" (Carnal mind).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. - Gen 2:7

The baby in the mother's womb has a heartbeat at a very early stage. How far along, I honestly do not know. But at around three months, and possibly earlier, there is a heartbeat. Where there's a heartbeat, there's life.

 

[convicted1]

When can the heartbeat first be detected?

Answer:

The human fetal heart begins beating about 22-23 days after conception. (Though the heart is not yet fully formed, cardiac muscle contractions have begun.) That's called the 5th week of pregnancy, since it's 5 weeks after the last period. The fetus at this stage is between 2 and 3 mm in size.
Sometimes it's possible to detect the heartbeat, with a Doppler instrument, almost this early, but usually the first such detection is later, around week 10, or at least by week 12. By week 21, the heart can be heard with a standard stethoscope.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_can_the_heartbeat_first_be_detected

 

[michael-acts17:11]

When can the heartbeat first be detected?


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_can_the_heartbeat_first_be_detected

Reference post #36 for the timeline for several biological systems.

 

[jonathan.borland]

A fetus "has the potential" to become a human being with a soul, but it is NOT.

This is merely Peter Ruckman KJVO nonsense. He says the baby's not got a soul until the doctor whaps it on the butt and it takes its first breath. He has lots of other heretical teachings, also.

 

[beameup]

This is merely Peter Ruckman KJVO nonsense. He says the baby's not got a soul until the doctor whaps it on the butt and it takes its first breath. He has lots of other heretical teachings, also.

Sounds like sound doctrine from Genesis.
Brain waves don't equal a soul.
Circulating blood does not equal a soul.
Muscular movements do not equal a soul.
God breathes into the nostrils and gives the soul.

And the LORD God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul. - Gen 2:7

 

[convicted1]

Sounds like sound doctrine from Genesis.
Brain waves don't equal a soul.
Circulating blood does not equal a soul.
Muscular movements do not equal a soul.
God breathes into the nostrils and gives the soul.

And the LORD God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul. - Gen 2:7

So aborting a baby isn't a sin, correct?

 

[jonathan.borland]

So aborting a baby isn't a sin, correct?

Correct! According to Peter Ruckman that is. Heresy!

He actually has preached saying just this, so I'm not putting words in his mouth or carrying his weird beliefs out to their logical conclusions. He's already done it and preached it!

Adding a link to the audio file and some excerpts from his sermon: Peter Ruckman's "abortion is not killing a soul" heresy.

Adding a direct link to the audio file here: Peter Ruckman's "abortion is not killing a soul" heresy MP3 file.

In his sermon he also talks about it being better to have aborted 800 babies who were conceived by rapists in India and Bangladesh, instead of having them birthed as the Roman Catholic church supported.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Sounds like sound doctrine from Genesis.
Brain waves don't equal a soul.
Circulating blood does not equal a soul.
Muscular movements do not equal a soul.
God breathes into the nostrils and gives the soul.

And the LORD God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul. - Gen 2:7

More heretical opinion without Biblical support. Which came first, Adam's soul or his biological systems? According to Scripture, Adam's body became animate only after he received a soul. Apply this truth to every person created hence.

I'm not sure why I'm even trying. Your position taints everything else you believe & reveals a twisted mindset. When you devalue life that is created in God's image, for which Jesus died, everything you believe must be understood in the context of this heretical, offensive personal doctrine.

 

[beameup]

Correct! According to Peter Ruckman that is. Heresy!

He actually has preached saying just this, so I'm not putting words in his mouth or carrying his weird beliefs out to their logical conclusions. He's already done it and preached it!

Adding a link to the audio file and some excerpts from his sermon: Peter Ruckman's "abortion is not killing a soul" heresy.

Adding a direct link to the audio file here: Peter Ruckman's "abortion is not killing a soul" heresy MP3 file.

Ruckman is correct on this issue. You won't find any scripture to contradict Ruckman on this.
Even if Adam was doing "back flips" prior to God breathing into his nostrils, he still did not have a soul.
Ruckman is on solid ground scripturally. Ruckman is not depending on his "feelings" and "emotions".

All mammals "have life" in the womb.
They all have "brain waves" in the womb.
They all have a "circulatory system" soon after conception - in the womb.

Terminating a pregnancy prematurely is terminating a "soulless" life,
but it is a "viable" potential person nonetheless, which does give it value.

When taken to it's LOGICAL conclusion, your position believes that life begins when sperm-meets-egg
(even if that "conception" occurs in a test-tube).

Which brings us to Michael's nonsensical concept of souls being "snatched from the womb" at the Rapture. :laugh:

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Ruckman is correct on this issue. You won't find any scripture to contradict Ruckman on this.
Even if Adam was doing "back flips" prior to God breathing into his nostrils, he still did not have a soul.
Ruckman is on solid ground scripturally. Ruckman is not depending on his "feelings" and "emotions".

All mammals "have life" in the womb.
They all have "brain waves" in the womb.
They all have a "circulatory system" soon after conception - in the womb.

Terminating a pregnancy prematurely is terminating a "soulless" life,
but it is a "viable" potential person nonetheless, which does give it value.

When taken to it's LOGICAL conclusion, your position believes that life begins when sperm-meets-egg
(even if that "conception" occurs in a test-tube).

Which brings us to Michael's nonsensical concept of souls being "snatched from the womb" at the Rapture. :laugh:

You're still making asinine comparisons instead of using God's Word to prove your humanistic liberal progressive approved position. I never stated that babies will be snatched from the womb. It was a question for those who believe in a secret rapture of the church.

 

[InTheLight]

When taken to it's LOGICAL conclusion, your position believes that life begins when sperm-meets-egg
(even if that "conception" occurs in a test-tube).

Yes, of course. When else would it occur?

 

[beameup]

Yes, of course. When else would it occur?

Yes, of course, an single-celled human being with a soul, residing in a test tube, maybe even frozen in liquid nitrogen..

 

[beameup]

Same disagreement I don't believe fallen angels interbred with humans. Sons of God always refer to the righteous, whether angel or human (never demons) and inter-species cross breeding is impossible.

bene ha 'elohim always refers to angels in the Old Testament, never to man.

God's Word says the bene ha 'elohim had sex with the bath adam and produced children - it is very specific in Gen 6.

Jude 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, -oikētērion (glorified body)
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. [/I]

2 Cor 5:2: For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house -oikētērion (glorified body) which is from heaven: - 2 Cor 5:2

2 Pet 2:2: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus,
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

[jonathan.borland]

Yes, of course, an single-celled human being with a soul, residing in a test tube, maybe even frozen in liquid nitrogen..

When God breathed into Adam it was to make him alive (with a soul). There is no evidence he ever did this with Eve or anyone else. The Bible is fairly silent on where/when each soul is created. Traducianism says that the souls come naturally from the parents, while others say God is still creating souls every time someone is conceived.

Beamup, is your view that God is still breathing the breath of soul into each baby once it takes its first breath, and that before this time the baby must therefore not have a soul though it is alive?

 

[beameup]

Beamup, is your view that God is still breathing the breath of soul into each baby once it takes its first breath,
and that before this time the baby must therefore not have a soul though it is alive?

I would draw somewhat of a parallel with being "born again", except that the timing is at a more specific point.
God "breathes in" the Soul at birth, and then God "breathes in" the Spirit the instant of regeneration.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:8