LDS What caused eternal matter to exist?

[fatboys]

The blood carries oxygen to all parts of the body. Life is in the blood.

It takes both. You can't
I've with blood. You can't live without air.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It takes both. You can't
I've with blood. You can't live without air.

Actually, you can live without air

 

[fatboys]

Actually, you can live without air

So how does you body live without oxygen?

 

[Rescued One]

It takes both. You can't
I've with blood. You can't live without air.

I can't live without Jesus!

 

[BigDaddy4]

Where did their 'ghosts' go?
and
Is a person's 'breath', (which is a mixture of mainly oxygen and other earthly gases) the life giving essence of the body?

Asleep. 1 Thess 4:14

 

[fatboys]

Asleep. 1 Thess 4:14

Really

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So how does you body live without oxygen?

It can't. But oxygen is not the same as air. You can live without air if you are provided with pure oxygen.

 

[fatboys]

It can't. But oxygen is not the same as air. You can live without air if you are provided with pure oxygen.

Do you see how petty this is?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Do you see how petty this is?

No.

 

[fatboys]

No.

Lol I guess not. Lol

 

[Ran77]

You are the one in error by claiming or alluding to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are "things". Therefore, your premise fails and your argument is invalid. Let me know when you want to try again with actual facts to deal with.

You are still not following the discussion. Not to mention that I asked you to provide an alternate term that includes all that exist and you have failed to do so. Instead you continue to pound away at this ridiculous argument about "things."

 

[BigDaddy4]

You are still not following the discussion. Not to mention that I asked you to provide an alternate term that includes all that exist and you have failed to do so. Instead you continue to pound away at this ridiculous argument about "things."

It's real easy - there's the always existed, non-created God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Everything else did not always exist and is created.

 

[Ran77]

Calling him 'boy'.

3. Informal. a grown man, especially when referred to familiarly: He liked to play poker with the boys.

You may choose to be offended if you like. I certainly can't stop you from making that choice, but the truth of the matter is that pointing out that John is a grown man with which you have ties of familiarity (a bond) is not rude. Feel free to continue your inaccurate rants on the subject.

As to the rest of your incredibly ridiculous reply, which I have excised due to both its length and its inanity . . .

I love the level of hostility in this post. To complain about me being rude and then move boldly forward with statements like this that can only be meant to insult me is hypocritical and demonstrates the Christian fruits which you have to offer. Do you posses the capability of discussing this topic without resorting to hostile and insulting responses? Or is this a matter that your position on the topic is so fragile that you must resort to this sort of tactic?

I note that you believe we are apparently discussing Colossians 1:16, whereas I have consistently brought up St. John Chrysostom's and St. Cyril of Alexandria's commentaries on John 1:3 . . .

There is no "believing" about it. I know what I am discussing. If you choose to limit the discussion to these other sources, that's up to you. I'm not bound by that decision. What's funny about it is that should any of the LDS bring in comments made by Joseph Smith as an authoritative source it would, no doubt, be rejected. But for some reason you seem to think that the LDS need to accept what John and Cyril had to say as a valid source. They are men. Lots of men have opinions about what is written in the Bible. I do not accept the opinions of these men as being valid and binding on me. I do not accept your double standard.

. . .as what had been under discussion was what "without Him was not anything made that was made" means, as Mormons had brought this up as an example of the Bible supporting their doctrine of eternal uncreated intelligences, which, as the ancient fathers show, it does not in fact support. (This, and not from any claims of being a mind-reader, is why I can say with confidence that you don't understand what you are reading. You don't need to have any special powers to see when Mormons are butchering a Biblical or Patristic text to support their foreign doctrines, because we can read what the fathers say, and we can read what you say, and we can see that they're not the same thing.)

I can't disagree with John and Cyril? The only possibility here is that I don't understand? That's amusing. It's also a flawed argument. I hate to burst your bubble, but I can understand what John and Cyril are claiming, understand your argument, understand what the Bible has stated, and still not agree with you. The only actual way that anyone can know that someone else doesn't understand something is by being able to read their mind. Without that non-existent super power the best a person can do is take an educated guess that the person is having difficulty understanding some part of a doctrine/concept/argument.

Nice try, but no bubblegum cigar.

Luckily for you, Colossians 1:16 has already been discussed in the quoted homily of St. John Chrysostom, though I had removed the citation in order to preserve readability, so it's not anyone else's fault if they hadn't caught the reference. Quoting the same portion over again, we may read now with citation intact:

There is nothing lucky about John quoting the verse. I don't accept John as an authoritative source. And since John isn't on the forum to participate in the discussion I have no desire to argue about his interpretation of the verses in question.

"Do you see the precision of his teaching? He has alluded to the creation of material things, (for concerning these Moses had taught before him,) and after bringing us to advance from thence to higher things, I mean the immaterial and the invisible, he excepts the Holy Spirit from all creation. And so Paul, inspired by the same grace, said, For by Him were all things created. (Colossians 1:16) Observe too here again the same exactness. For the same Spirit moved this soul also. That no one should except any created things from the works of God because of their being invisible, nor yet should confound the Comforter with them, after running through the objects of sense which are known to all, he enumerates also things in the heavens, saying, Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; for the expression whether subjoined to each, shows to us nothing else but this, that by Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

St. John is observing that Paul in his letter to the Colossians taught the same as John in his gospel, that no one should except created things from what God has created by virtue of their being invisible, but also by the same virtue should not confuse them and the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit is not among the class of created things, being God Himself.

I understood it the first time. Still reject it. Still reject John as an authoritative source to tell me what it means. Still reject John's opinion on the matter. Still reject John's interpretation of the verses. And I don't need to console myself with the misguided notion that any disagreement you have with my comments is based on your not being able to understand them.

 

[Ran77]

It's real easy - there's the always existed, non-created God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Everything else did not always exist and is created.

If it's easy then you should be able to respond to my request. Provide an acceptable term for all that exists. Your comments here don't address the "things" issue that you are having.

 

[Ran77]

What is the correct definition of "things" as used in the Colossians 1: 16?

Strongs has this to offer:

πᾶς pâs, pas; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:—all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

And this:

I. individually
A. each, every, any, all the whole, everyone, all things, everything

II. collectively
B. some of all types

That should help the discussion along.

All. Every. The whole. Each. Any. All things. Everything. Everyone.

 

[Peter1000]

Blood.

You are aware that at death, most humans still have 100% of their blood, but they are still dead. So that means blood is not the life giving element in the human body.

Do you have another guess? Let's see, there is the flesh, which is not the life giving element. Then there is the blood, that is not the life giving element. Then there is the ___________, which is the eternal component of the human body Fill in the blank.

 

[Rescued One]

You are aware that at death, most humans still have 100% of their blood, but they are still dead. So that means blood is not the life giving element in the human body.

Do you have another guess? Let's see, there is the flesh, which is not the life giving element. Then there is the blood, that is not the life giving element. Then there is the ___________, which is the eternal component of the human body Fill in the blank.

Be concerned with the meaning of Leviticus 17:11 instead of science. Science won't give you eternal life with God.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If it's easy then you should be able to respond to my request. Provide an acceptable term for all that exists. Your comments here don't address the "things" issue that you are having.

Again you are confused. It's you that has this "things" issue that you base your premise on.

 

[Peter1000]

Be concerned with the meaning of Leviticus 17:11 instead of science. Science won't give you eternal life with God.

The blood is the vehicle to spread, nutrients and other life giving elements to the body. But it is not what gives life to the body. If it were so, there would be no blood in the body of a human as soon as they expire, which we know is not the case.

Blood is necessary, but does not give life.

Did the bible say that God breathed blood into the nostrils of Adam and he became a living soul? No it did not, it said that God breathed the 'breath of life' into Adam and he became a living soul. Again, the 'breath of life' is equated with
'the eternal spirit within man'.

This makes sense. When the eternal spirit leaves the flesh and blood body, it immediately dies. The blood of the dead body is sucked out of the body and the flesh is prepared for burial. Where does this eternal spirit go?

 

[Peter1000]

Asleep. 1 Thess 4:14

The word 'asleep' has to do with persons that have died.

The idea that an eternal life giving breath would come out of the body at death and then crawl into a bed and go to sleep and then wake up at the resurrection and start to live again, doesn't make biblical sense.

Do you have any other thoughts about where the eternal breath of life/ghost/spirit would go at the death of the body?

For instance look at this scripture:
1 Peter 3:18-20King James Version (KJV)
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Who are these spirits in prison?