Well, I'll tell ya what I believe, but there ain't biblical verses to back this stuff up. (In other words, the biblical pundits on this site will probably try to prove me wrong, but whatever - I know I'm right. )

All of us - all souls - were created at the same time. Yes, long, long before the creation of the physical world on which we now reside. We were the very souls talked about in the "war in heaven" where some supported God and others Satan. We were all there, and chose God's side - that's why we're here.

Reffering to this "House of Souls", I haven't the slightest. But I do know that every soul that God has created will have a chance to obtain a physical body, whether before or during the millenial reign is unimportant.

But that's what I believe. I can back it up scripturally, just not biblically.

But I do know that every soul that God has created will have a chance to obtain a physical body

Do you mean to say that angels will or have had physical bodies? Can you please show me something about this?
Thanks!

I'd be interested to know where we get the idea that angels have souls at all. "Soul" might be a more narrowly defined idea. Would everything with life that is created have a soul? If God made insects without souls that serve a function, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that angels have them.

In reference to soul storage, the place you are talking about is called the Guf.

I try not to go beyond what is written but think this is a good question. I do see in scripture that we were pre-ordained before the foundation of the earth so I think God at least had an idea that we would be planted here on this earth and put in the book of the living. But outside of that is mere conjecture on our part and very intense for our mere human brain lobes.

I used to wonder if we were not shown a preview before we came here somehow, because when I was very young I used to have the oddest sensation that I'd seen or been in certain situations that I was presently going through. I also remember my son as a baby looking at a picture of Jesus on the wall and grinning from ear to ear so I did wonder.........

I do not believe in reincarnation, nothing to do with my opinion, but because scripture makes it clear that it's not to be so....... that can't be it.

In reference to soul storage, the place you are talking about is called the Guf.

Yes Andy, the Hall of Souls is also known as The Chamber of Guf, which according to Jewish mystics lies in the 7th heaven. The seventh Heaven, under the leadership of Cassiel, is the holiest of the seven Heavens provided the fact that it houses the Throne of Glory attended by the Seven Archangels and serves as the realm in which God dwells; underneath the throne itself lies the abode of all unborn human souls. It is also considered the home of the Seraphim, the Cherubim, and the Hayyoth.

I do not believe in reincarnation, nothing to do with my opinion, but because scripture makes it clear that it's not to be so....... that can't be it.

Agreed!

"If we humans have souls, and at the time that we are ressurected we will be "equal to the angels", then I assume angels must have souls as well."

Equal doesn't necessarily mean of the same spiritual makeup. It could mean equal in terms of the hierarchy of beings, equal in power, esteem, etc. I was always taught that angels were created, but God actually breathed life into Man which made a 'living soul'.

I don't think we can really assume the same of angels.

...but in the New Testament, Jewish priests were sent to ask John the Baptist, "Art thou Elijah?" (John, 1:21).

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No.

I am noticing here when John the Baptist is asked if he is Elijah, he simply answers no. Is John the Baptist lying or deliberately misleading his questioners here?

John 9:1-3 also implies that the disciples believed in reincarnation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The disiples are wondering how a man could be born blind if he could not sin (before he was born), or if his parents sinned, is this the reason for the mans blindless.

Jesus goes on to answer in John 9:3 - Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Jesus goes on to explain that God made this man blind (perhaps in order for Christ to perfom the coming miracle):

John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Nothin in anything from the 9th chapter of John indicates reincarnation in the slightest. Should anybody interpret that from these verses that the disiples believed in reincarnation (which IMHO is way off the mark), rest assured that Jesus sets things straight without ANY doubt.

Reincarnation does not exist anyblace in the bible that I have ever seen.

In reference to soul storage, the place you are talking about is called the Guf.

thought it was called the GUR

.

.

If you look up the word "Child" in Websters I don't think you'll find that it applies to angels very well.

Nor is the word "child" used in Luke 20:36. However the word "childeren" is, and is well defind as to that words meaning if you continue to read the sentence, "and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

I doubt seriously that Jesus even used the word equal since the word didn't exist then,

Dont be silly, of course he did not use the word "equal". He used the word "ισάγγελος" or, "isaggelos", pronounced as "ee-sang'-el-los", translated from the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to "like an angel, that is, angelic: - equal unto the angels."

Neither Jesus nor the people who translated the Bible had the benefit of a Webster's Dictionary. I hope you literalists haven't taken your idea of inerrancy and applied it to Webster now too, lol.

Again, please do not be silly, we all know Websters did not exist back then any more than the English language.

We simply use the translated bible so we can read the word of God. If we canot understand our own language, then we seek the credible Websters Dictioanry to help us with that.

Is a "literalist" a person whom understands what they read or simply literate?

The OP in this regaurd is a lot better than youir redefining words to suit your own purpose.

...applied it to Webster now too, lol.

Many laughed at Christ and his disiples as well. When you laugh at me, it has the same effect it had on T/them; we pity you:)

"Nor is the word "child" used in Luke 20:36. However the word "childeren" is, and is well defind as to that words meaning if you continue to read the sentence, "and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Ah, so Webster's is wrong about its definition of children (i.e. more than one child) in this case regardless of context but it is dead on about its definition of equal regardless of the fact that Jesus was talking about one aspect of the afterlife. With what authority do you pick and choose?

"Dont be silly, of course he did not use the word "equal". He used the word "ισάγγελος" or, "isaggelos", pronounced as "ee-sang'-el-los", translated from the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to "like an angel, that is, angelic: - equal unto the angels."

Like isn't equal. Which is it? You are relying on a nuance of language from a document passed through the centuries, also based upon some man-made concordance. Yet you know with complete assurance based upon this fact that angels have souls.

One vastly subjective word "equal", translated from a more subjective phrase, and you know that you are right and I am wrong.

"Is a "literalist" a person whom understands what they read or simply literate?"

No, a literalist is someone who believes in the literal truth of a man-made, paper and ink Bible as though it is the word of God. I call it idolatry, personally, but the word most often used are biblical literalists.

"Many laughed at Christ and his disiples as well. When you laugh at me, it has the same effect it had on T/them; we pity you:) "

Save your pity. I pity people who sit with glazed eyes and ponder mythology while the world around them suffers. Why not ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while you are defining their spiritual makeup and deciding if there is a big pool of souls somewhere...

Just like he used the old testament god is described as imposing suffering and death of Job, his family and servants to make a point to satan. Do you really believe a perfect God would abuse his creation to make a point? If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human. Do you really believe God is less moral than we are?

Ok, I am not going to go through all the scripture quoting or anything of that sort. But you are stating that you believe in God. Or at least you are debating His Word and what it means.

So..As for the statement about God allowing people to suffer, and allowing things to happen. He gave us free will. So if we have free will then we have the choice to worship God, and be one of His children.. Does He not have the right to test us ( through allowing things to happen ) to see how strong are faith in Him is, and if it is true? Many times the only way we learn more about God and become closer to Him, is through the tribulations He allows. He says that He will never give us more than we can handle. As for Job. We have never been put through what Job went through. To lose all, to fall ill, to be left completely alone. Yet Job STILL worshipped God, and kept his faith in Him. He did not say " God this is cruel of you to test me in such a way, and to allow such things to happen".I doubt your or many of us would be able to be so strong as Job was in that situation.And what happened in the end ? Job had everything restored to him.God did not say "Hey thanks Job. Just wanted to prove to Satan that you are Mine, and My child. Sorry about your losses." As for the blind man..when Jesus gave him sight ..did he say " How dare your Father allow me to be born blind in order for you to show His power"??? No.

If God did not allow things to happen, in order for us to see His works and His will, then how would we ever know or learn? Is not the Bible an accont of things said and done in order for us to learn more about God and His way?, and will for us? And also, that is where faith comes into play. If we have faith that there is a God, and we have faith in God, then we need to have faith in the things He allows, no matter what His reason(s) may be for them.

You said " If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human" How can you compare God's actions or allowances to those of our own? We are no where to being on the same level as God.We can be Christ-like when we accept Jesus as our Savior. But even then we could not compare ourselves to God.No one can, nor will ever be comparable to God.

God does not abuse His creation. He allows things to happen for His own reasons. And if we want to sulk and cry about what we feel is unfair then that is our free will to do so. Instead , we could seek God and learn lessons from why such things happen, or maybe our situation that He has allowed will become a testimony to someone else. And probably many things we will never know as to why they were allowed, and that is ok.

Yes God could simply allow everything to happen in a positive way without pain, suffering, anger, grief, and so on. But we live in a sin filled world. How would we understand tribulations and triumphs in life, if God allowed nothing bad to ever befall anyone?

We are down here, God is up there. Why we only see and hear about what happens around us, He sees the whole picture.

Like isn't equal. Which is it? You are relying on a nuance of language from a document passed through the centuries, also based upon some man-made concordance. Yet you know with complete assurance based upon this fact that angels have souls.

You seem not to believe that the Bible is as the true Word of God. Yes it was written by man and things have been translated through the years, but it is STIlL the Word of God.And the Truths of it are as strong as they were when the Bible came into place.