This is a very rude way to speak about one of the great fathers of the Christian Church. Please keep in mind that this is a Christian messageboard.
Which part of this is rude?
1. The fact that I point St. John out as a spokesman for your beliefs?
2. The fact that I comment on St. John being male?
3. That I call him St. John?
I'm not sure if you just didn't read the source (I linked the entire thing, and brought from it to this conversation the illustrative points) or if you simply so convinced that it must either support Mormonism or be something to be scoffed at, but St. John Chrysostom goes to great length to establish just what is being talked about here, and what isn't, as well as why. For instance: "And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds, that without Him was not anything made that was made. That is to say, that of created things, not one, whether it be visible or intelligible was brought into being without the power of the Son." I have already highlighted in other posts where he specifically mentions what is unmade and hence meant to be specifically left out from this statement (e.g., the Spirit), which you have called very ignorantly 'an exception' and we call God by nature (essence, ousia, etc.).
That's okay, you don't have to be sure. And you don't have to be correct in the limited options you give as to my response. Close your eyes to the possibility that it could be something else other than what you mentioned and you can blissfully cling to whatever conclusions you want to thrust upon me. Not that I'm bound by those conclusions, but it does prevent you from understanding what is really going on. That's ignorance. However, if you feel it's necessary to insult me by calling my actions ignorant, then you go right ahead. I don't have any need for personal attacks or name calling in order to make my points in this argument.
Do you know what the word exception means?
Exception = something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.
And here is the verse in question.
16 For by him
were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And mathematically, we have an explanation of the power set. Which for the purpose of this discussion would be the set/category of all things.
The elements of the power set of the set {
x,
y,
z}
ordered with respect to
inclusion.
In
mathematics, the
power set (or
powerset) of any
set S is the set of all
subsets of
S,
including the empty set and S itself. The power set of a set
S is variously denoted as P(S), ℘(
S) (using the "
Weierstrass p"),
P(
S), ℙ(
S), or, identifying the powerset of
S with the set of all functions from
S to a given set of two elements, 2
S. In
axiomatic set theory (as developed, for example, in the
ZFC axioms), the existence of the power set of any set is
postulated by the
axiom of power set.
[1]
In order for it to be true that all things were created by Him, there can be no exceptions. If it exists, it is a part of the "all things" power set. In verse 17 John mentions that Jesus is before all things. That's an exception - an instance not conforming to the general rule that all things were created by Him. He did not create Himself. As long Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost exist, they are part of the all things category. Because really, that is what all things means is all that exists.
St. John then goes on to explain how God and the Holy Ghost were not created. Two more exceptions to the statement that Jesus created all things (all that exists). These are two more items in the power set of all that exists that do no conform to the general rule.
No matter how you want to spin it, these are exceptions to a straight-forward statement made in the Bible.
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Nope.
What's going on here is that mainstream Christianity uses this crutch to support their view of the creation. When taken in context with other verses in the Bible it seems obvious to me that it is the wrong interpretation.
Again, you have not apprehended the meaning of what you have read, neither in the Holy Bible itself nor in St. John Chrysostom's commentary on it.
I always find it amusing that other people suggest that they know what I understand and don't understand. It must be thrilling to have such super human power.
Your own view based on Mormonism's erroneous and heretical theology, cosmology, and anthropology does not make Christian theology 'flawed'. No.
That's correct; my views don't make Christian theology flawed. The flaws in Christian theology make them flawed.
And I would like to see Mormons stop becoming magically 'Bible-only' when convenient, so I guess we'll both be left wanting. You won't be finding any Bible verses that specifically state anything about uncreated eternal 'intelligences', either, so it's a bit much to attempt to push such a standard on those who never argued according to it in the first place when you cannot adhere to it yourselves.
1. Did I make any comment about "Bible-Only"?
2. Do you see me posting quotes on this forum from anything besides the Bible?
(Unless I'm specifically asked about other sources.)
This is a distraction tactic. My guess is you want to pull attention away from the flawed Christian theology.
Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean there's any contradiction. You've created this false paradigm that is explicitly condemned by the early church itself and then claimed that we somehow can't account for it when the answers are right there before you from 1600 years ago, you just do not have the mind of the early Church with you when reading them, so you can only see reflections of your own anti-Christ, anti-Biblical doctrine, to a greater or lesser degree. And this other peoples' fault how? It isn't. You cannot but parrot the Mormon cosmology even when it is soundly rebuffed by the fathers who predate us all and learned themselves at the feet of the apostles and their disciples, the bishops established by them. So I will treat your baseless and uninformed condemnations with the same gravity with which you and your religion treat the early Church itself.
Right, because it always is a matter of me not being able to understand something. There goes that super power again. Pile on some false accusations about anti-Christ and anti-biblical doctrines. I haven't even posted any doctrines so at this point it would be impossible for that to be the case. What I understand however, is rather than dealing with the substance of my argument you have switched to full out personal attacks. I don't understand, anti-Christ, only capable of parroting. Any chance that you can just deal with the arguments I present and quit making this about me and what I'm capable of doing? Or are you unable to rebuff my arguments?
The point is that all that exists is not the same as all that was made, because God exists and He was not made.
Point out where I have argued against this view.
