Comments on: Biblical Anthropology and the Mind-Body Debate, Part 2 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/ Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems Tue, 22 May 2012 03:12:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Bran http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-4559 Bran Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:42:18 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-4559 I suppose I may not take that verse the usual way either. I take it to mean that Adam, via the fruit, gained a sort of higher knowledge or consciousness. I also take it to mean that this was taught by Adam to his kids and so on. Thus sin entered, because when we know what we are doing is wrong, we are accountable for it. But maybe that's not right. I suppose I may not take that verse the usual way either. I take it to mean that Adam, via the fruit, gained a sort of higher knowledge or consciousness. I also take it to mean that this was taught by Adam to his kids and so on. Thus sin entered, because when we know what we are doing is wrong, we are accountable for it.

But maybe that’s not right.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-4554 MSH Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:41:11 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-4554 I tend toward Traducianism as well, so I'm with you. The issue (for the Jesus and sin nature issue) is that his mother was indeed a woman -- and a human. But since I don't take Romans 5:12 the way most Christians do, I don't have a problem with traducianism. I'm just trying to give a "give and take" description of the options. I tend toward Traducianism as well, so I’m with you. The issue (for the Jesus and sin nature issue) is that his mother was indeed a woman — and a human. But since I don’t take Romans 5:12 the way most Christians do, I don’t have a problem with traducianism. I’m just trying to give a “give and take” description of the options.

]]> By: Bran http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-4544 Bran Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:22:00 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-4544 I don't see a problem concerning Christ in traducianism. Christ had no earthly father. I also fail to see why traducianism is needed to explain the spread of sin nature. The foundation for the sin nature seems to be the knowledge of good and evil. Why can this, and I mean the knowledge of good an evil, not spread via simple human interaction? It needs no hereditary mechanism. Finally, I find traducianism interesting in light of the nephilim. It is a question as to how nonbiological Elohim could produce offspring with humans. The descriptions of the events seem to almost require the adopt some manner of viable human biology. If that is the case, if they basically took on human form, then why would their offspring be extraordinary? Traducianism provides a good explanation. I don’t see a problem concerning Christ in traducianism. Christ had no earthly father.

I also fail to see why traducianism is needed to explain the spread of sin nature. The foundation for the sin nature seems to be the knowledge of good and evil. Why can this, and I mean the knowledge of good an evil, not spread via simple human interaction? It needs no hereditary mechanism.

Finally, I find traducianism interesting in light of the nephilim. It is a question as to how nonbiological Elohim could produce offspring with humans. The descriptions of the events seem to almost require the adopt some manner of viable human biology. If that is the case, if they basically took on human form, then why would their offspring be extraordinary? Traducianism provides a good explanation.

]]> By: The Naked Bible » The Mind-Body Problem: Summarizing the Tough Issues http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-1702 The Naked Bible » The Mind-Body Problem: Summarizing the Tough Issues Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:28:30 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-1702 [...] the body upon death. Here is the previous post, which offered three articles for reading.  Here is the post before that, where I included summary positions of “where the soul comes from” via some systematic [...] [...] the body upon death. Here is the previous post, which offered three articles for reading.  Here is the post before that, where I included summary positions of “where the soul comes from” via some systematic [...]

]]> By: Ken Hamrick http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-1589 Ken Hamrick Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:53:49 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-1589 W. G. T. Shedd's argument is superior to these; but it suffered from too much Platonic philosophy, as well as the error of thinking that both parents contribute to the soul of the child. Paternal traducianism solves many problems. I've written an article refuting Turretin on traducianism, which you might find interesting: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/content.php?40-Turretin-on-Traducianism-Refuted W. G. T. Shedd’s argument is superior to these; but it suffered from too much Platonic philosophy, as well as the error of thinking that both parents contribute to the soul of the child. Paternal traducianism solves many problems. I’ve written an article refuting Turretin on traducianism, which you might find interesting:
http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/content.php?40-Turretin-on-Traducianism-Refuted

]]> By: blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-1471 blop2008 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:41:01 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-1471 Simple: Creationism is more close to the truth Traducianism doesn't really make it But, I prefer Grudem, especially his last paragraph. Simple:

Creationism is more close to the truth
Traducianism doesn’t really make it

But, I prefer Grudem, especially his last paragraph.

]]> By: Jonnathan Molina http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-2/#comment-1470 Jonnathan Molina Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:35:58 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=556#comment-1470 Ok I think it's clear from scripture that you do not even need a human father to be born both from the human species AND with a soul (I mean Jesus, of course, who was 100% human). In addition (and I really hate to be on the side of Catholics and Calvinists on anything but...) creationism seems to have a lot more going for it theologically than traducianism. Grudem wrote: "Finally, traducianism could explain how the sins of the parents can be passed on to the children without making God directly responsible for the creation of a soul that is sinful or has a disposition that would tend toward sin." Readers of this blog know that there's another way to get God "off the hook" of creating a soul that is sinful and that is simply that we aren't born with "sin-infected" souls to begin with. (Remember the Romans discussion; do we really inherit a sinful nature at birth, etc.) Hodges support of creationism to me wins the day but his 3rd point I think is flubbed because he did not consider the fact that sin isn't what is being transmitted through the human bloodlines as the result of the fall, but Death as Rom 5:12 points out. So he (and Traducianism) lose their steam on that fact alone in my opinion. And what about what Jesus said that that which is spirit is born of the spirit and that which is of the flesh is born of flesh? Clearly the spirit of man (key word: SPIRIT) comes from the realm where God (who is a Spirit) lives and is sent by Him and has nothing to do with us passing it down to each other like blue-eyes or webbed feet. Ok I think it’s clear from scripture that you do not even need a human father to be born both from the human species AND with a soul (I mean Jesus, of course, who was 100% human). In addition (and I really hate to be on the side of Catholics and Calvinists on anything but…) creationism seems to have a lot more going for it theologically than traducianism. Grudem wrote: “Finally, traducianism could explain how the sins of the parents can be passed on to the children without making God directly responsible for the creation of a soul that is sinful or has a disposition that would tend toward sin.” Readers of this blog know that there’s another way to get God “off the hook” of creating a soul that is sinful and that is simply that we aren’t born with “sin-infected” souls to begin with. (Remember the Romans discussion; do we really inherit a sinful nature at birth, etc.)

Hodges support of creationism to me wins the day but his 3rd point I think is flubbed because he did not consider the fact that sin isn’t what is being transmitted through the human bloodlines as the result of the fall, but Death as Rom 5:12 points out. So he (and Traducianism) lose their steam on that fact alone in my opinion. And what about what Jesus said that that which is spirit is born of the spirit and that which is of the flesh is born of flesh? Clearly the spirit of man (key word: SPIRIT) comes from the realm where God (who is a Spirit) lives and is sent by Him and has nothing to do with us passing it down to each other like blue-eyes or webbed feet.

]]>