We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us by a Mormon called Stephen.(*) Click here to see the other articles in this series. You can also go to the Mormonism page to find all the articles that are in this refutation of Stephen’s document.
The ECs claim man has no premortal spirit since “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen. 2:7) Does this mean our spirit did not exist in some state prior to its placement into our mortal body?
No, our spirits did not exist before existence began, because our spirits are created. Adam did not exist before the sixth day of creation, neither in spirit nor in body, because if he existed, then he was not a creature. We have seen all this previously, especially in our previous article Are we the creatures of God, or His natural children?
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of god shouted for joy?” (Job 38:2-4,7)
Some ECs, as do the JWs, combat these verses by citing Genesis 6. They say “the sons of God” were rebellious angels who came down and intermarried with human “daughters of men,” and, as an outcome, their children were giants.
All of you should not combat any verse in God’s Word. The verses of the Bible should not be taken out of context. The context of Genesis 6 is totally different from the context of Job 38, so please stay in context (as I keep advising you, but you don’t want to listen). In the context of Job, it is very clearly explained who are meant by the “sons of God” in that Book. You can read Job 1:6 to see how in the Book of Job not all of the creatures of God are meant by “sons of God”, but the spiritual beings called angels, whether the good angels or Satan and his demons: “And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah; and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6) I guess you know very well that in Job 1:6 man was not present before the Lord in Heaven, so it is clear that man is not considered among those “sons of God” meant in the context of Job. Those “sons of God” in the Book of Job are the angels who were created before the earth was created on the third day of creation (see Job 38:4,7 — the angels were there when God created the earth on the third day — and compare that with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 where it is clearly said that the invisible powers of Heaven, the angels, also were created by the Son). But in the context of Genesis, we have a huge difference. In Genesis 4 we read: “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: … For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain has slain him.” (Genesis 4:25) Look how Eve speaks: she says God has given her another seed instead of Abel, as if Cain were not of her seed… What is she talking about? Let’s go back to Genesis 3 and read: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.” (Genesis 3:15) The Bible explains how this seed is Jesus Christ. For more details about this, you can read our article The Woman? Or the Seed of the Woman? So Eve was talking about the holy line from which the Christ would come which is the seed. This is the line of the children of God which is detailed in the genealogies of Jesus in the Gospel Accounts. If you notice, the genealogy of Luke gets to the following point: “of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.” (Luke 3:38) That is, son of God. In other words, Luke is saying that Jesus indeed came from the holy line chosen by God. That line is the line of the children of God. In Genesis, Satan wanted to kill the hope of Salvation for humanity by killing the head of that holy seed, i.e. Abel. Eve said: no, God has provided another one in the place of Abel — Seth! Of course, this is the Seth mentioned in Luke 3:38 at the head of the holy seed after Adam. After trying to stop this blessed line by killing Abel, Satan tried to kill our hope for Salvation by corrupting this line in Genesis 6. But God has another word to say! He chose Noah and his family and saved a REMNANT! Although all those who were considered children of God by being children of the flesh of Seth were corrupted, but God kept a REMNANT! Then from the seed of Noah God chose Abraham. Then from the seed of Abraham, He chose Isaac, then Jacob. And then all Israel was considered children of God. These also were corrupted: just like in Genesis 6, the children of God committed adultery with the world! BUT… GOD ALWAYS KEPT A REMNANT! This is clearly explained by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. In that Epistle also Paul explains: “That is, [they that are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned as seed.” (Romans 9:8) This is VERY clear. So Eve said God kept the holy seed of the children of God by replacing Abel by Seth. And interestingly, the very next verse says: “And to Seth, to him also was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah.” (Genesis 4:26) Does this mean that Adam didn’t worship God?? Not at all! But this means that this is the seed that calls on the Name of Jehovah! This is the holy seed of the children of God.
So don’t confuse the context of the Book of Job with the context of Genesis. In the Book of Job the “sons of God” are clearly angels, spiritual beings, while in Genesis the topic is clearly the holy seed, the holy line from which Christ would come. To use an irrelevant context to explain another context of the Bible is very wrong and will lead to superstitious beliefs. To say that in Genesis 6 the topic is about angels is to imagine that spiritual beings can have sexual relations with humans, which is a totally pagan superstitious idea that has zero back up in the Bible and clearly contradicts what the Bible teaches, as we have seen. Pagans have stories of gods marrying humans…
But I am interested to see how Stephen imagines that Genesis 6 proves that our spirits existed before their creation… Let’s wait and see…
Before moving on to the soul of man, I will discount this hypothesis.
Stephen keeps fighting against heretical teachings in Christianity, and he can never agree with himself or try to fight against our biblical doctrines.
And he continues:
By the way, Jesus called Himself “the bright and morning star” in Revelation 22:16.
Once again, trying to explain the context of Revelation 22:16 with an irrelevant context. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus is THE Morning Star, and not a morning star among others. In Job angels are called “morning stars” to mean that they are creatures that point to the Sun (God), while in Revelation 22 Jesus is called THE Morning Star to mean that He is THE ONLY One who truly reveals the Father, as He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son as explained in John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].” In Hebrew, “angels” means “messengers”. All the time in the Old Testament angels were messengers of God, but they could not fully reveal God. Although they are morning stars, but they are morning stars by office and not by nature. Jesus Christ is THE Morning Star, because He is the ONLY Morning Star who is the Morning Star BY NATURE.
So Stephen keeps confusing contexts ignorantly and thus gets to false conclusions that contradict the Bible.
And he continues:
We will start with a look at the Savior’s genealogy. In Luke 3:23-38, we learn, at the beginning of Christ’s lineage, Adam was “the son of God.” In 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Paul tells us God will be a Father to us and we will be His sons and daughters.
We have seen why Adam was called son of God. And in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Paul is talking about the spiritual children of God. How to be a spiritual child of God? John answers this question clearly: “but as many as received him, to them gave he [the] right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name” (John 1:12). So only those who are born of God by faith in Christ are those spiritual children of God. People are not children of God by birth or by nature! They are children of God by adoption in Christ.
I am still waiting to see how Stephen is imagining that he will be able to prove with all this confusion that our spirits existed before their creation…
In Romans 8:14, he said, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” In Philippians 2:15, he said, “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God.” These are the true characteristics of “the sons of God.”
Yes, and we have seen how one becomes a child of God like this: by the new birth by faith in Christ. We’re not children of God by our nature.
I have a question to Stephen here: Are you blameless? Are you sinless? If you say yes, then you make God a liar (read 1 John 1:10). If you say no, then you’re not a child of God if we explain these verses according to your corrupted way of interpretation. If you want to know more about how to become blameless, you can read the following articles, the first before the second: How to be justified before God?; A true Christian is a saint — Perfection in Christ
Besides, Genesis 6 says there were already giants on the earth before “the sons of God” intermarried with “the daughters of men.” To avoid confusion, let us read the first four verses: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said,
My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days: and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
No, the giants about whom Genesis 6 speaks did not exist before those intermarriages. What you’re reading in this text is a Hebraic style to explain something already mentioned. It’s like saying: “There were giants in the earth in those days. Oh, let me explain to you which giants I am talking about: well, these are not any giants that already existed in those days and that existed later also, but these are the giants that were the fruit of corruption. When the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men, they had children just like Cain, mighty men who live by their strength and not by the power of God. It has always been like this, oh children of Israel (remember that Moses first wrote Genesis addressing the children of Israel): just as you have to rely on God to be saved from the slavery of Egypt, children of God always relied on the power of God and not on their own power, while the children of the world (children of Cain in this context) always relied on their own power; they were mighty men, even giants”. Remember that Cain was the violent man who killed Abel, and Abel was the peaceful man who relied on God. The same is with Jacob and Esau: Jacob was the weak in whose weakness the power of God was revealed, while Esau was the strong man. Paul also explained how in his weakness God’s power is revealed. It has always been like this.
So Stephen has no idea about the Hebraic style of explaining things. His error in this context is similar to the error of others in the context of Genesis 2. In Genesis 2 we read the same Hebraic style: “And Jehovah Elohim said, It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate, his like. And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.” (Genesis 2:18-20) If we read these verses in the corrupted and ignorant way Stephen read the above verses, then we will say that Genesis 2 says animals were created AFTER Adam with the purpose of finding a helper for Adam! If this were the case, then Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, because Genesis 1 clearly says that animals were created BEFORE Adam… What is the problem here? The problem is that people are not getting the Hebraic style explained above and which is used in this context as well — Moses is explaining in the following way: “God wanted to make a helper for Adam. BY THE WAY, God had made animals from the ground just like Adam, but they could not be helpers for him although they were created from the ground like him, so He made Eve”. This is the Hebraic style of explaining things, but of course Stephen has no idea about this, therefore he can’t understand the text of Genesis 6. To read more about the account of creation in Genesis 2 and how it does not contradict Genesis 1, please go to our article: Do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other?
And Stephen continues:
These verses do not say these sons of God “came down” to these women, as if from Heaven. Such a claim constitutes addition to Scripture, which, as we will discuss in the next chapter, ECs claim as forbidden.
And Stephen uses this claim of the ECs as true, and he uses it against ECs, although he says at the same time that this claim is wrong… Speaking about double talk?…
We continue reading his document:
These verses also clearly state how the giants were there before these “rebel angels” supposedly came down to the “daughters of men.”
Yeah, just as Genesis 2 says that Adam was created BEFORE animals, right?… This has been explained above.
And “giant” is a relative term. The tallest Roman gladiators were no taller than five and a half feet. A man of seven feet would seem like a giant to such small people as they were in that era.
Irrelevant to the argument. We have been following these silly superstitions that contradict God’s Word, and Stephen still couldn’t prove to us his hypothesis that the soul of man existed before its creation on the sixth day of creation. We have seen how this clearly contradicts God’s Word, so Stephen is wasting our time and he’s trying in vain to find a way to prove his hypothesis.
The belief “the sons of God” were fallen angels is pagan, not Biblical.
Just like the belief that we are gods. The pagans would agree with Mormons.
We continue reading:
Let us do some more reasoning together. Could a spirit angel who does not have a body come down to earth without God’s sanction, create a body for himself before doing so, and take control of us mortals?
No. And let us reason from Scripture about the Mormon superstition which is not less ridiculous than the hypothesis that Stephen is trying to refute: Could man’s spirit exist before its creation when he is a creature and not God the Creator?
When Lucifer the Light Bringer, the most powerful evil force known to man, was cast out of Heaven (more on that premortal event later),
That’s not “premortal”. I would like to see Stephen precising about which definition of “heaven” he is talking here, as we have seen that the devil, even in the days of Job, went to Heaven and stood before God…
was he able to create his own body or provide bodies for his angels? No.
No angel can create anything; they are creatures and not creators. There is only ONE Creator, God. Only the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit can create.
That was why they took simultaneous possession of the bodies belonging to other people, mortals.
Irrelevant to Stephen’s argument.
And he continues:
There are other schools of thought on these verses in Genesis 6, but the only logical explanation is this: The “sons of God” were descendants of Seth, Adam’s God-fearing son. The “daughters of men” were descendants of Cain, Adam’s rebellious son. Moses was told by the Lord in Deuteronomy 7 to keep the sons and daughters of Israel from marrying the peoples of their enemy nations. Why? Because they would have been corrupted and taught to follow the false gods of the other nations. Did they abstain? No. They made the same mistakes as the descendants of Seth. God did not destroy the earth with the flood to destroy giants. He did it because the people had become idolatrous and committed all sorts of atrocities, mostly of a sensual nature. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5) This explanation was given for the few ECs who believe in the “giant theory” doctrine, since most ECs believe as we do.
Great. Now let’s pass to the imaginary proof that the spirit of man existed before its creation?…
The pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch is the source of the fallen angel theory, which has been passed down to or accepted by a few smaller Protestant sects. This book is still available and should be read for fictional entertainment, for that is what it has become.
Stephen takes pleasure in attacking those Protestants who are not truly Protestants, but Neo-Evangelicals. Let’s see how this will serve him in answering the biblical truth which is clearly against his cult as we have seen…
Before some clever ancient novelist got a hold of and corrupted the original text of Enoch, it was a reliable source of true doctrine.
ONLY the Bible, the Word of God, is a reliable source of true doctrine, and that apocryphal text of Enoch was never a part of the Bible. For more info about the Canon, you can read our article The Canon of Scripture. The Book of Enoch is a human writing and has nothing to do with God’s Word.
The apostle Jude quoted it.
Jude never quoted it as an inspired writing. Jude was given direct revelation from God. When an Apostle or a prophet quotes a human writing, that doesn’t automatically make that writing inspired. Paul also quoted pagan poets, but that doesn’t mean that those poets’ writings became inspired. The Holy Spirit can take any part of any human writing to make an inspired revelation through it, just as it was the case with the concerned Jude’s passage, and just as it was with the documents of pagan kings from which Ezra and Daniel quoted.
I don’t need to enter in more details about this, because we have already written a detailed article about The Canon of Scripture. The Book of Enoch is clearly not in the Canon.
Keep in mind “angel” is nothing more than a messenger.
OK. Readers are waiting to see how this long story will prove that the soul of man existed before its creation…
Mark referred to John the Baptist as the “angel” sent before Christ to prepare the way before Him. (See Mark 1:2 in the Greek.)
Birds fly, so all what flies is a bird… Good argument?… I don’t think so. Not all messengers are angels… So let it be clear: John the Baptist is a messenger, but not an angel by nature; he’s really human. We pass…
Calling the sons of God “angels” is erroneous.
It was not erroneous in the Book of Job, as we have seen. So don’t generalize; study each context well so that you may not make such silly generalizations.
Now we can discuss man’s eternal soul.
Finally… Let’s see how the previous joke was relevant to man’s eternal soul (as believed by Mormons)…
“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Eccl. 12:7) How could a spirit return to God if it had never been in His presence at a former time?
The text doesn’t say that it will return to God because it was in His presence, but because it is He who GAVE it. Read well. The spirit should return to the One who created it without using any means (in contrast with dust which is used to make the body).
We’re reading pleasant superstitions, but they are not so pleasant when we know that they are leading Mormons to Hell…
We continue reading:
“Our Father which art in heaven . . .” (Matt. 6:9) To distinguish Him from our earthly fathers, the Savior taught us to be specific when addressing our Heavenly Father.
No, dear friend, the Lord was teaching us that God is not of our nature and someone equal to us, and that we should approach Him with reverence which is due to His Holiness. This is clearly taught in the whole Bible. Let’s take one passage that explains this clearly: “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and draw near to hear, rather than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they know not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in the heavens, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few.” (Ecclesiastes 5:1-2) Learn how to study God’s Word, Stephen…
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” the Lord told His young prophet, Jeremiah. Many professors of religion attempt to dilute what the Lord meant, saying He had knowledge of what Jeremiah would become. They can only get away with this explanation in English because our verb, to know, has two separate connotations—having acquaintance and having acquired knowledge. In any other language, there is no mistaking what He really meant—having acquaintance.
As if the Bible never explained this verb “to know” when used in this way… And as if God did not know anyone before he was formed in the womb other than the prophet Jeremiah… Let’s see how the Bible explains this verb:
God says to Israel:
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2)
Does this mean that God had no acquaintance of any nation on the earth other than Israel?… Of course not! God knows all humans very well, for He is Omniscient. But the verb to know in such contexts means “to predetermine a relationship with”. Under the Old Covenant, God had predetermined a relationship only with Israel, and not with any other nation.
Again, we read in Psalm 1:
“For Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish.” (Psalm 1:6)
Does this mean that God does not know the way of the wicked?… Of course not! But this means that God is in a covenantal relationship only with the righteous.
In the same way, God told Jeremiah that He had predetermined a personal relationship with him even before he existed! It is God who is Sovereign and who chooses with whom He will have a personal relationship. Of course, Stephen and his friends the Mormons have no idea about the Sovereignty of God as we have seen.
So, dear Stephen, if you agree that God didn’t know any nation other than Israel and that He didn’t have any idea about the way of the wicked, then we will agree with you that God knew Jeremiah in the way of acquaintance. What do you say?…
We continue reading Stephen’s document:
Jeremiah was a normal mortal man, born of two normal mortal parents. Yet he existed before his conception.
Show us where the Bible says that he existed before his conception.
God knew him, personally.
Yeah, just as God knew Israel only and He didn’t know other nations, right?…
And Jeremiah was chosen before he was born—foreordained—to serve a mission for his Lord.
Yes, he was chosen for a mission based on the predetermined relationship God had chosen to have with him before he existed.
We’re still waiting to see where the Bible says that Jeremiah existed when God predetermined to have with him that relationship.
Foreordination is not just an Old Testament concept. Paul told the Romans, “For whom he did foreknow (knew beforehand), he also did predestinate (‘foreordained’ in the NIV) to be conformed to the image of his Son, . . .” (Rom. 8:29)
Yes, just as He only knew Israel and was ignorant about all other nations, right?…
This verse is about Election, the predetermined relationship of God with those who are in Christ Jesus, and with them ONLY.
We continue reading:
Prior to this verse, Paul taught we are all children of God, His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ. (Rom. 8:16-18)
Wrong! Paul never taught that we all are children of God. The Bible clearly teaches that only those who received Christ are the children of God. Paul made it clear that only those who are led by the Spirit are the children of God. We have seen all this before, so we pass…
Paul taught the Hebrews, “Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb. 12:9)
“Fathers of our flesh” simply means “our fleshly fathers”, and “Father of spirits” simply means “our spiritual Father”. We have previously seen how those who are born of the Spirit are spirit, and not flesh and spirit, and we have seen how “spirit” in that sentence means “spiritual”. God is the spiritual Father of those who are born of Him, of those who are spirit (spiritual), and of them only, because only those who have Christ by faith are the children of God, as we have seen. Those who are in the flesh are not in subjection to the Father of spirits, because they are not spirits (spiritual), and indeed they are not even ABLE to be in subjection. We have seen the details of this before, so we will not go back there. Indeed, only the children of God (those who are spirits) are disciplined by God in order to learn obedience, and that’s one of the evidences that they are children of God and not counterfeits. We have an article about this, in case you want to read more about it: God disciplines His children. Those who are not spirits are not disciplined by God and they will never be in moral subjection to Him; they will be judged.
The NIV takes from ancient manuscripts, “the Father of our spirits.” We are literally—not figuratively—the children of God.
Which ancient manuscripts are you talking about? The NIV only gave an interpretative translation of this verse which is not exactly what we read in the manuscripts. The manuscripts have it “the Father of spirits”. And we have seen how those who are born of the Spirit are spirits, so we won’t go back there. Of course, Stephen and all Mormons will never be able to answer those biblical explanations.
As for us literally being the children of God by nature, we have seen how this is wrong: Are we the creatures of God, or His natural children?
After Paul was led from Thessalonica to avoid persecution, he went to Mar’s Hill among the Athenians, a people given totally to idolatry. He took issue with an altar that bore the inscription, “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” He testified, “Whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” He then explained how God had given us agency to “live, and move, and have our being,” that, “we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:23-29)
Paul never said we’re God’s offspring. But why would Stephen want to read this in context? That would show him the truth, and what he wants is to avoid the truth… So why would he want to read it in context?… Let’s read it in context:
“for in him we live and move and exist; as also some of the poets amongst you have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)
So that is said by some pagan poets, and not by Paul!! Paul is simply using an argument from their own words to prove to them how they did not know the true God. As they did not know God, so even their words contradicted their beliefs!
Stephen, all such embarrassments would be avoided if you only listened to my advice: study the Bible IN CONTEXT, and not according to what Joseph Smith has taught you; he’s a false prophet as you see; he’s contradicting the Bible.
We continue reading:
On a few occasions, Jesus called Himself, “the Son of Man.” Again, on one such occasion, He tells us which Man, even “the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)
We have seen how the interpretation of Stephen in this verse is totally wrong. Let me quote the explanation again: this verse explains how the Son of Man is in Heaven at the same time when He is talking with Nicodemus. Jesus told Nicodemus that while He was talking with him, He was in Heaven at the same time, because He is God incarnate (the Son of Man). “Son of man” is one expression, and “which is in heaven” is about this Son of Man.
We continue reading:
“[T]he very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thes. 5:23) Paul concluded his first epistle to the saints at Thessalonica with this seemingly innocuous salutation. What the rest of Christendom fails to learn from this passage is the very makeup of the human soul.
“spirit and soul and body” means their whole being. This is not talking about any makeup of the human soul, but about the nature of what humans are: spirit and soul and body.
The word for soul in this verse is psyche, a Greek word, which literally means, mind, just as psychology literally means, study of the mind.
In this passage, spirit and soul are not two entities, but the one immaterial part of man. In man, the soul, the breath of life, is spiritual, i.e. it can have a personal relationship with God, while the soul or the breath of life of animals is not spiritual. Therefore, the soul of man is also called spirit in the Bible, while the soul of animals is never called spirit; it’s just breath.
If the way Stephen understands the word “soul” is right, then animals also have a mind… “Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:21) In this verse, the word “breath” is the Hebrew “rûach” which literally means “wind” (breath, spirit) and which also means “breath of life”. Genesis explains to us that animals have this breath of life just like humans: “And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7); “And they went to Noah, into the ark, two and two of all flesh, in which was the breath of life.” (Genesis 7:15) So animals also have this breath of life which is called “soul” in the case of man, but their soul is not even called spirit or soul because it cannot be in rational and spiritual relationship with God. Ecclesiastes also explains of course how the breath of life in man is a spirit, and how it goes “upward” and not to the earth like the breath of life in animals: “and the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
As you see, Stephen is hallucinating…
The Greek word for spirit is pneuma. The Greek word for body is soma. Our complete being is made up of three parts: the mind—our intelligence that has always existed; the spirit—created in Pre-Existence; and the body—created on earth.
And the Bible says that God created the WHOLE man on the sixth day of creation. We have seen how the soul of man (the breath of life) which is spiritual (spirit) came to existence when God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and that was on the sixth day of creation. There is no way to imagine otherwise unless we want to do like Mormons, i.e. to imagine flying elephants… The Bible is clear.
We continue reading:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Church on the earth with that understanding.
Yes, because it is a sect, a wrong religion that does not believe what the Bible says, but imagines flying elephants in accordance with the false teachings of their false prophet Joseph Smith who contradicted God’s Word as we are seeing in these articles. We pray for those deceived Mormons that God may save them from this big deception as they see the inconsistencies in the teachings of that false prophet.
No one else can explain why there are three separate and distinct components mentioned in this verse.
They are not separate… Anyway, as you can see, I have explained it, but without imagining flying elephants like you did…
The mind—or intelligence—of man is a part of what makes him a complete “soul.”
Excuse me? You should make up your mind: is the mind the whole soul, or just a part of what makes him a complete soul?…
Our mind and spirit and body are united to form the human soul.
Show us where the Bible says this.
Matthew 10:28 distinguishes our soul, or psyche, from our body, or soma.
Let’s read Matthew 10:28:
“And be not afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but fear rather him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
As you see, the body is not part of our soul… So you were wrong above when you said that our mind and spirit and body form our soul…
Stephen is confused, as you can see…
We continue reading:
Hebrews 4:12 distinguishes our spirit, or pneuma, from our soul, or psyche.
This first contradicts your theory that the mind and spirit and body form the soul, because the soul is distinguished from the spirit according to you. So you contradict yourself.
But let’s read Hebrews 4:12 carefully:
“For the word of God [is] living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to [the] division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of [the] heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)
This just means that the Word of God penetrates to the deepest part of the human soul, to where the spirit is in relation with the body through the whole psychological system of man. We know that the psychology of man is both affected by his spiritual condition and by some physical conditions. Hebrews 4:12 is saying that God’s Word works on all that. This is by the way a clear statement against the use of human psychology to treat problems which have as real cause a spiritual problem, i.e. sin; the Word of God should be used instead.
We continue reading Stephen’s document:
These verses confirm LDS doctrine of having three separate components to the human being.
These verses contradict your theory, as we have seen above.
While in mortality, this union is fragile and a separation is imminent to us all.
The union of what? Do you think each of these parts goes in a different direction when we die?… Do you think the body goes to the dust, and the spirit goes to God, and the soul… oh… where does the soul go, dear Mormon?…
However, though the body dies and decomposes, our mind and our spirit live on, having been inseparably joined in Pre-existence.
Ah, have you not said above that these are three separate parts of the human soul?… Do you see how you contradict yourself?…
Indeed, as our soul is spiritual and is one thing with the spirit (it is our spirit), so when we die, the body goes to the earth, and the spirit (our soul) goes to God who gave it, as we have seen.
Our mind and our spirit were not joined in pre-existence, because in pre-existence they did not exist as the word pre-existence actually means… We have seen the details of this before.
We continue reading:
Joseph Smith, a country farm boy with three years formal education, taught: “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (D&C 93:29)
Yes, he was a false prophet indeed.
We continue reading:
Joseph Smith also taught through his translation of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, although one spirit in Pre-Existence may have been more intelligent than another, the Lord was “more intelligent than they all.” (Abraham 3:18,19)
Yes, he contradicted the Bible; he was a false prophet.
We continue reading:
What love The Most Intelligent Being of the Universe had for lesser intelligence!
What are you talking about? This is just a dream that Joseph Smith had, and you’re believing it! The love that God has is a love of the CREATOR to CREATURES like us, and not a love of higher intelligence towards lesser intelligence of the same nature! What kind of corruption of understanding is this, Stephen? Won’t you wake up and see what God says in the Bible?
Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ