Topic: So, just when DOES, a soul enter a body?

[J Michael]

In another thread, the final paragraph of this post http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.msg899976.html#msg899976 may be worth discussing separately.  (Or, maybe not  .)

[Fabio Leite]

I understand that soulless bodies are dead, therefore, as long as there is life, there is a soul. So, since conception until natural or unnatural death.

[Orthodox11]

Some Fathers believed each soul was directly created by God and joined with the body on the 40th day after conception. I think St. Jerome says the point at which the unborn child begins to move in the womb is the point at which it had received a soul and become a living human person. Others believed the soul, like the body, was taken from the parents and was therefore joined to the body at conception.

The Church seems to have more or less universally accepted the latter opinion.

I understand that soulless bodies are dead, therefore, as long as there is life, there is a soul. So, since conception until natural or unnatural death.

From conception, the embryo is kept alive by the mother, so - just for the sake of argument - one could argue for a soulless embryo until the 40th day.

[choy]

I thought a soul separate from the body is neo-platonism?  And that in Biblical terms, soul is always the entire person, body included?

[Fabio Leite]

I wonder what the Fathers and the ancient ones understood by conception. They obviously could not see spermatozoa nor eggs, much less the fact that they joined to become one (yes)moving cell with completely different DNA from the mother.

I'm no specialist in ancients views of conception, but I'm under the impression they saw it in agricultural terms, therefore the name "semen" which stands for seed. That's why some people thought woman had no participation whatsoever in the flesh of the new person, because it was seen as a plant: men were the only ones who could produce other human beings, like a tree that produces seeds. Women were unperfect men, necessary though, to be the "earth" where the seed had to be planted.

If that's the case, the question the ancients asked about conception were rather different from ours. They were asking themselves: when does a seed becomes a tree? That's where we see that "movement" would make sense as an argument, for when things start moving in the seed it has already started to become a tree. You could say it is already a tree in growth.

And the seed, for them, was just men's semen. Today, we know there are *two* "seeds", from the man and from the woman. Once they join, they obviously have ceased to be "seeds" and have become someone entirely new.

Some Fathers believed each soul was directly created by God and joined with the body on the 40th day after conception. I think St. Jerome says the point at which the unborn child begins to move in the womb is the point at which it had received a soul and become a living human person. Others believed the soul, like the body, was taken from the parents and was therefore joined to the body at conception.

The Church seems to have more or less universally accepted the latter opinion.

I understand that soulless bodies are dead, therefore, as long as there is life, there is a soul. So, since conception until natural or unnatural death.

From conception, the embryo is kept alive by the mother, so - just for the sake of argument - one could argue for a soulless embryo until the 40th day.

[Aindriú]

You don't need genetics or a microscope to see that children get traits from the mother. This theory is very thin.

[Orthodox11]

I wonder what the Fathers and the ancient ones understood by conception. They obviously could not see spermatozoa nor eggs, much less the fact that they joined to become one (yes)moving cell with completely different DNA from the mother.

I'm no specialist in ancients views of conception, but I'm under the impression they saw it in agricultural terms, therefore the name "semen" which stands for seed. That's why some people thought woman had no participation whatsoever in the flesh of the new person, because it was seen as a plant: men were the only ones who could produce other human beings, like a tree that produces seeds. Women were unperfect men, necessary though, to be the "earth" where the seed had to be planted.

If that's the case, the question the ancients asked about conception were rather different from ours. They were asking themselves: when does a seed becomes a tree? That's where we see that "movement" would make sense as an argument, for when things start moving in the seed it has already started to become a tree. You could say it is already a tree in growth.

And the seed, for them, was just men's semen. Today, we know there are *two* "seeds", from the man and from the woman. Once they join, they obviously have ceased to be "seeds" and have become someone entirely new.

The Fathers obviously had no serious knowledge about the whole process, but the basic division of opinion remains: God creates the soul independently and imparts it to the body (at whatever stage) or the constituents of the soul derive from the parents. In the latter case, the soul must come to be at the moment of conception, while in the former case this need not be so.

[J Michael]

I wonder what the Fathers and the ancient ones understood by conception. They obviously could not see spermatozoa nor eggs, much less the fact that they joined to become one (yes)moving cell with completely different DNA from the mother.

I'm no specialist in ancients views of conception, but I'm under the impression they saw it in agricultural terms, therefore the name "semen" which stands for seed. That's why some people thought woman had no participation whatsoever in the flesh of the new person, because it was seen as a plant: men were the only ones who could produce other human beings, like a tree that produces seeds. Women were unperfect men, necessary though, to be the "earth" where the seed had to be planted.

If that's the case, the question the ancients asked about conception were rather different from ours. They were asking themselves: when does a seed becomes a tree? That's where we see that "movement" would make sense as an argument, for when things start moving in the seed it has already started to become a tree. You could say it is already a tree in growth.

And the seed, for them, was just men's semen. Today, we know there are *two* "seeds", from the man and from the woman. Once they join, they obviously have ceased to be "seeds" and have become someone entirely new.

The Fathers obviously had no serious knowledge about the whole process, but the basic division of opinion remains: God creates the soul independently and imparts it to the body (at whatever stage) or the constituents of the soul derive from the parents. In the latter case, the soul must come to be at the moment of conception, while in the former case this need not be so.

But...if only God creates....

[LizaSymonenko]

So, if the soul comes from God....then we may have a timing issue as to when "life" begins.
If the soul comes from the parents, then life begins at conception.

Interesting....

[primuspilus]

Around these parts, it depends on how you vote.

[J Michael]

So, if the soul comes from God....then we may have a timing issue as to when "life" begins.
If the soul comes from the parents, then life begins at conception.

Interesting....

Yes, it is, isn't it?! 

So, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, do we accept what our Churches teach us, i.e. that life begins at conception, and then  leave the rest of it, i.e. a knowledge and understanding of precisely when the soul enters the body to God and leave it at that? 

[Punch]

So, if the soul comes from God....then we may have a timing issue as to when "life" begins.
If the soul comes from the parents, then life begins at conception.
Interesting....

Why would God make something that is imperfect?  Also, did not creation end on the seventh day? If the soul came from God, it would be perfect and there would be no sin.  However, if the soul comes from the parents, it would contain the same imperfection as the parents.  There were Church Fathers that espoused both views.  I tend to hold the latter view, just as I tend to be a believer in Original Sin.  But that is a different discussion than this, and probably comes from years of study of conservative Lutheran theology.  At least one Russian Orthodox book on theology I have read seems to also support this view, but does not come out directly saying so.  

[TheMathematician]

So, if the soul comes from God....then we may have a timing issue as to when "life" begins.
If the soul comes from the parents, then life begins at conception.

Interesting....

Warning, this is personal opinion, which may or may not end up, by chance, having basis in any real proof

Does it have to be an either or situation? The sould could come both fully from God, and from the parents, just like how Christ is both Fully Man and fully God?

[Punch]

So, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, do we accept what our Churches teach us, i.e. that life begins at conception, and then  leave the rest of it, i.e. a knowledge and understanding of precisely when the soul enters the body to God and leave it at that? 

I believe that one of the Fathers (Cyril of Alexandria?) went as far as to say so.  However, regardless of when the soul enters the body, the Church has never regarded abortion at any point as anything other than murder, rendering the question moot for most purposes (except for "the Immaculate Conception).  Since pretty respectable Fathers believed both ways, it is probably acceptable for us to believe either was regarding the entering of the soul to the body.

[Orthodox11]

I believe that one of the Fathers (Cyril of Alexandria?) went as far as to say so.  However, regardless of when the soul enters the body, the Church has never regarded abortion at any point as anything other than murder, rendering the question moot for most purposes (except for "the Immaculate Conception).  Since pretty respectable Fathers believed both ways, it is probably acceptable for us to believe either was regarding the entering of the soul to the body.

If nothing else, when a human life is at stake, better to err on the side of caution rather to let millions die on the basis of a possibly erroneous theological opinion.

[Orthodox11]

Does it have to be an either or situation? The sould could come both fully from God, and from the parents, just like how Christ is both Fully Man and fully God?

Not in the way Christ is fully Man and fully God, because this implies a union of the divine and human natures - it would be heresy to apply such an idea to humanity in general.

The soul is not divine. The question is whether God creates it "from scratch", as it were, or whether it, like the body, is the direct result of the reproductive process. The idea that it is created from scratch doesn't exclude the idea that body and soul are united at the moment of conception, it just doesn't necessitate it.

[Fabio Leite]

Let's assume God creates the soul separately.
The creation of this souls is "triggered" by the body now in preliminary stages. Killing the body would deprive its assigned soul from its proper vessel or worse, of creation!

We can make an analogy. Imagine a father who makes his son give up his career as a lawyer so he could become a doctor like himself, and his grandfather and so on. Now, imagine a father who, even when the son is still a child, chokes every sign of his vocation for Law, forcing him into Medical School.

In the first case, the father is doing violence to his son when the "soul" (the career) is already there. In the second case, the father is preventing the "soul" from manifesting in the physical world and is maybe even worse than the former.

In any case, you are murdering a vocation. Or in the fact we are analyzing, a person.

I wonder what the Fathers and the ancient ones understood by conception. They obviously could not see spermatozoa nor eggs, much less the fact that they joined to become one (yes)moving cell with completely different DNA from the mother.

I'm no specialist in ancients views of conception, but I'm under the impression they saw it in agricultural terms, therefore the name "semen" which stands for seed. That's why some people thought woman had no participation whatsoever in the flesh of the new person, because it was seen as a plant: men were the only ones who could produce other human beings, like a tree that produces seeds. Women were unperfect men, necessary though, to be the "earth" where the seed had to be planted.

If that's the case, the question the ancients asked about conception were rather different from ours. They were asking themselves: when does a seed becomes a tree? That's where we see that "movement" would make sense as an argument, for when things start moving in the seed it has already started to become a tree. You could say it is already a tree in growth.

And the seed, for them, was just men's semen. Today, we know there are *two* "seeds", from the man and from the woman. Once they join, they obviously have ceased to be "seeds" and have become someone entirely new.

The Fathers obviously had no serious knowledge about the whole process, but the basic division of opinion remains: God creates the soul independently and imparts it to the body (at whatever stage) or the constituents of the soul derive from the parents. In the latter case, the soul must come to be at the moment of conception, while in the former case this need not be so.

[J Michael]

So, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, do we accept what our Churches teach us, i.e. that life begins at conception, and then  leave the rest of it, i.e. a knowledge and understanding of precisely when the soul enters the body to God and leave it at that? 

I believe that one of the Fathers (Cyril of Alexandria?) went as far as to say so.  However, regardless of when the soul enters the body, the Church has never regarded abortion at any point as anything other than murder, rendering the question moot for most purposes (except for "the Immaculate Conception).  Since pretty respectable Fathers believed both ways, it is probably acceptable for us to believe either was regarding the entering of the soul to the body.

Thank you for this ^. 

[yeshuaisiam]

The direct interpretation of the creation in Genesis is after EVERY living thing was created it is stated "having a soul".   Even the fish, animals, insects.

This is out of Strongs concordance, and is understood this way by the Jews.

So I would say the body has a soul at conception, as it is alive.

[JamesR]

The Bible mentions God forming you in the womb, so I imagine it begins somewhere around conception. In the past, however, I imagine that most of the Fathers could not observe sperm and the microscopic biologic elements and stuff, so to them, it probably began when pregnancy became visible.

[LizaSymonenko]

Believe me, a woman knows she is pregnant, loooooong before it is "visible".

[J Michael]

The Bible mentions God forming you in the womb, so I imagine it begins somewhere around conception. In the past, however, I imagine that most of the Fathers could not observe sperm and the microscopic biologic elements and stuff, so to them, it probably began when pregnancy became visible.

Now, that's an interesting (?) notion.  Do you have any Patristic references to back it up?  Because otherwise, Liza's post above makes mincemeat of that idea.

[Punch]

Be careful about that understanding of the "soul" as it has also been interpreted (by some Jews) as spirit.  All creatures have a "spirit", but only man has a "soul".  This is evidenced by the penalty of striking a woman and causing her to miscarry before the baby was fully formed. It is much less than the penalty for causing her to miscarry after the baby is formed.  In the former, you pay a fine to the father because the fetus does not yet have a soul.  In the case of the latter, the penalty is that for murder.  I believe that the soul entering the body at 40 days is a Jewish teaching (and in some cases, 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female), and some Church Fathers held this view because it was an early Jewish belief.  Of course, saying "the Jews" is like saying "Protestant" since Jews are far from unified in their theology, even in Jesus' time.

The direct interpretation of the creation in Genesis is after EVERY living thing was created it is stated "having a soul".   Even the fish, animals, insects.

This is out of Strongs concordance, and is understood this way by the Jews.

So I would say the body has a soul at conception, as it is alive.

[Punch]

The Bible mentions God forming you in the womb, so I imagine it begins somewhere around conception. In the past, however, I imagine that most of the Fathers could not observe sperm and the microscopic biologic elements and stuff, so to them, it probably began when pregnancy became visible.

I think that people had a good idea of how baby butter worked long before the Church Fathers.  See the story of Onan.

[orthonorm]

In another thread, the final paragraph of this post http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.msg899976.html#msg899976 may be worth discussing separately.  (Or, maybe not  .)

Life is life. There is a false dichotomy here. Soul means life. Nothing else. Orthodox believe that even plants have souls.

This has been discussed in detail elsewhere.

[orthonorm]

Be careful about that understanding of the "soul" as it has also been interpreted (by some Jews) as spirit.  All creatures have a "spirit", but only man has a "soul".

Oops.

Or the other way around.

[orthonorm]

In another thread, the final paragraph of this post http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.msg899976.html#msg899976 may be worth discussing separately.  (Or, maybe not  .)

Life is life. There is a false dichotomy here. Soul means life. Nothing else. Orthodox believe that even plants have souls.

This has been discussed in detail elsewhere.

J Michael, if you care, you can pick up here in this thread:

I have to say that every time this subject has come up in every thing I have read and listened to about Orthodoxy, the answer has univocally yes, all life is ensouled.

Do you have any thoughts about Met. Kallistos being careful with his words, saying that plants only "perhaps" have a soul? Is it perhaps that it's too foreign a concept for some, and he didn't want to let the idea out there hanging?

I knew that this didn't seem correct, as I have read and listened to much of what Met. Kallistos Ware has written or said which is made available to the public, so did a quick search in my materials:

The Soul – The soul is created by God simultaneously with the body. It is a “creature” and is therefore
not immortal by nature but by divine grace. The soul is “the life-force that vivifies and animates the body,
causing it to be not just a lump of matter, but something that grows and moves that feels and perceives.”
The soul moves and activates each member of the body according to St. Gregory of Sinai. As God
governs the world, so the soul governs the body. The soul is not enclosed by the body, but rather occupies
and fills the entire body. The body is the “vehicle” of the soul. The soul can simply mean “life” as it
exists in every creature (including animals and plants): “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd
gives his life (psyche) for the sheep.” (JN. 10:11) The soul can also refer to the spiritual aspect of our
existence: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able
to destroy both soul and body in hell” (MATT. 10:28) “A man is a soul, he is a human being, he is
someone …” (C. Yannaras). A soul is truly alive – “a living being” (GEN. 2:7) – when it is filled with the
Holy Spirit. The human person is a psychosomatic unity of body and soul. A person is whole only when
the soul and body are united.

From Glossary of Terms for Orthodox Christian Anthropology and the Spiritual Life

http://www.christthesavioroca.org/files/Orthodox-Anthropology.pdf

[Dionysii]

Some Fathers believed each soul was directly created by God and joined with the body on the 40th day after conception. I think St. Jerome says the point at which the unborn child begins to move in the womb is the point at which it had received a soul and become a living human person. Others believed the soul, like the body, was taken from the parents and was therefore joined to the body at conception.

The Church seems to have more or less universally accepted the latter opinion.

I believe that last remark is correct.  

Saint Gregory the Theologian (of Nyssa) wrote that children receive their souls through their parents just as they receive their bodies through them as well.  

I am not a theologian, but I believe that Saint Maximos the Confessor asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ received the entire human nature including a human soul from his Mother the Theotokos just as he had received a Divine nature from God the Father.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did not only receive flesh from the Mother of God but a human soul as well.  He received the entirety of human nature in order to save the entire human nature - not only the physical flesh body.  I take this as a model lesson of the way procreation works in that God uses parents to establish the souls and bodies of their children.

Human nature is twofold - soul and body.  The soul is the superior part, and the body is the inferior part, but both are equally human nature.  A human soul comes into existence at the same time as the body.

Human nature is twofold and not threefold (i.e. body, soul, and spirit).  It is the soul of man (the superior part) that reflects God as a trinity - not the whole person which is made twofold: body and soul.  The three parts of a human soul are reason, ethos, and emotion.  Plato correctly discerned this and asserts it in his Republic.  The Holy Fathers of the Church believe this as well, but not because of Plato.  Their analysis is yet more discriminating and in depth than his.  Constantine Cavarnos wrote very nicely about this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul

[Punch]

I don't think that all of the Fathers believed in the Dichotomy of man, particularly in the East.  I was biased toward Trichotomy from my days as a Lutheran.  As I started to study the Early Church Fathers, it seemed to me that Trichotomy was a commonly held position up to Augustine (who was against it).  Tertulian, Origen, Tatian, Iraneus, and Justin Martyr all seemed to hold to the idea of the three parts of man (body, soul, and spirit).  The idea fell out of favor in the West for sure, at least until it was revived by Luther and the more conservative wing of Lutheranism.  I also seem to remember Plato tending toward Trichotomy.

Some Fathers believed each soul was directly created by God and joined with the body on the 40th day after conception. I think St. Jerome says the point at which the unborn child begins to move in the womb is the point at which it had received a soul and become a living human person. Others believed the soul, like the body, was taken from the parents and was therefore joined to the body at conception.

The Church seems to have more or less universally accepted the latter opinion.

I believe that last remark is correct.  

Saint Gregory the Theologian (of Nyssa) wrote that children receive their souls through their parents just as they receive their bodies through them as well.  

I am not a theologian, but I believe that Saint Maximos the Confessor asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ received the entire human nature including a human soul from his Mother the Theotokos just as he had received a Divine nature from God the Father.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did not only receive flesh from the Mother of God but a human soul as well.  He received the entirety of human nature in order to save the entire human nature - not only the physical flesh body.  I take this as a model lesson of the way procreation works in that God uses parents to establish the souls and bodies of their children.

Human nature is twofold - soul and body.  The soul is the superior part, and the body is the inferior part, but both are equally human nature.  A human soul comes into existence at the same time as the body.

Human nature is twofold and not threefold (i.e. body, soul, and spirit).  It is the soul of man (the superior part) that reflects God as a trinity - not the whole person which is made twofold: body and soul.  The three parts of a human soul are reason, ethos, and emotion.  Plato correctly discerned this and asserts it in his Republic.  The Holy Fathers of the Church believe this as well, but not because of Plato.  Their analysis is yet more discriminating and in depth than his.  Constantine Cavarnos wrote very nicely about this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul

[Dionysii]

I think there is more of a consensus among the Church Fathers on this topic than some people would imagine.  
A given Church Father that speaks of body, soul, and spirit can be seen to be talking about the trinity of the soul and be a dichotomist upon closer examination (barring explicit statements to the contrary).  Man is a trichotomy in the sense of his soul.

Plato did believe in a tripartite man, and it was man's soul of which he spoke.  Plato's reason, ethos, and emotion can be stated as soul, spirit, and body - two different ways of saying the same thing.

EDIT:
I do not think the issue is dichotomy versus trichotomy so much as properly understanding how man is constructed.  To understand a whole person including the fleshly body as part of a tripartite existence seems to me to be confusion.  To understand the soul as tripartite makes sense of the whole issue. 

Well, I guess I've pounded that into the ground. Those are my two cents, anyway.

[minasoliman]

Believe me, a woman knows she is pregnant, loooooong before it is "visible".

Not necessarily...some women experience different things, some women experience nothing at all but increased hunger and weight gain in a weird area.

[minasoliman]

So, if the soul comes from God....then we may have a timing issue as to when "life" begins.
If the soul comes from the parents, then life begins at conception.

Interesting....

I used to think that would be the logical case, but not necessarily.  We just simply "don't know".  It's one of those cases where "the soul" is hard to define.

For instance, a soul that comes from God can be created right at the point of conception.  A soul that comes from parents may not form until the 40th day.  We just don't know how the issue of the soul with the body works.  We know it's there based on how advanced our species are and how spiritual we can become.  But we don't know anything further from that for sure.

One interesting argument, which is the same argument made by St. Augustine, is that the soul has to be from the parents, and not from God, so as to show that Original Sin is not created from God.  And I'm not against the notion of Original Sin, but Original Sin did not occur in a change in our essential human nature, but rather in the state of our grace under God.  We are all born "in exile", not necessarily "inherently diseased".  So, even if God creates, the soul is united to a flesh "in exile", not "in paradise" as Adam and Eve used to be in.

[Romaios]

“A man is a soul, he is a human being, he is someone …” (C. Yannaras).

I find it linguistically interesting that in Hebrew and Aramaic nefesh ("soul") can be used as a reflexive pronoun:

"Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul = as himself" -  veye'ehavehu yehonatan kenafsho (1 Sam. 18:1).

"They cannot deliver their soul = themselves from the power (= hand) of the flame" -  lo yatsilu et-nafsham miyyad lehava (Is. 47:14).

Also, in the Gospel we could read:

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his soul will lose it; and whoever loses his soul for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?

Or rather:

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save himself will lose himself; and whoever loses himself for my sake and the gospel’s will save himself. For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and lose  himself? For what can a man give in return for himself?"

The Peshitta has the pronoun nafsheh for all the bolded parts. Just like "go, show yourself (lit. your soul) to the priest(s)" - zel chawā' nafshāk lkāhne (Mt. 8:8 ).

Same goes for ātman in Sanskrit:

Ātman is a Sanskrit masculine reflexive pronoun and noun meaning "self, soul, true personality." It is cognate with German Atem, "breath." Since the early Upaniṣads, it has been the Indian term representing various notions of the soul or self. "Ātman" denotes oneself in contrast to someone else; it can mean the breath-soul (cf. Gk πνεῦμα), a homunculus, the individual soul (sometimes in transmigration), the immortal spirit in a mortal body, or mind and consciousness. Source

[NicholasMyra]

Romaios is spot on.

Arabic functions the same way.

[LizaSymonenko]

Believe me, a woman knows she is pregnant, loooooong before it is "visible".

Not necessarily...some women experience different things, some women experience nothing at all but increased hunger and weight gain in a weird area.

That may be true sometimes, however, usually women know something is "up" when they miss their monthly cycles.

Although there have been cases that the mom has no idea until the baby comes, because her cycle wasn't regular, etc.  What a surprise!

[Dionysii]

usually women know something is "up" when they miss their monthly cycles.

>second

That is such a nice and useful quote that is in your signature. 
I really need to regularly spend a bit time with specifically that kind of literature.

[LizaSymonenko]

Thanks. I think it's great advice, as well.  Profound, actually.

Hard to live up to, but, definitely worth the effort.

[yeshuaisiam]

Believe me, a woman knows she is pregnant, loooooong before it is "visible".

Not necessarily...some women experience different things, some women experience nothing at all but increased hunger and weight gain in a weird area.

In some cases, I agree with minasoliman.... but in my wife's case, I ABSOLUTELY agree with LizaSymonenko. LOL

[minasoliman]

Believe me, a woman knows she is pregnant, loooooong before it is "visible".

Not necessarily...some women experience different things, some women experience nothing at all but increased hunger and weight gain in a weird area.

That may be true sometimes, however, usually women know something is "up" when they miss their monthly cycles.

Although there have been cases that the mom has no idea until the baby comes, because her cycle wasn't regular, etc.  What a surprise!

oh okay...yes...I agree.