An LDS Genuine Article by Stealth

Comments:

Stealth,

must I re-post my comment that proves that you are wrong on nearly every point you make here?

The RCC did not exist at this point. The Eastern Orthodox accepted the Nicene Creed and only rejected the later added amendments. It has been demonstrated to you that the Emperor Constantine did not force the Nicene Creed. The Catholic church refered to in the Creed is not the RCC (the RCC was not in existence). The universal church is nto completely shattered. All Christian churches in the world make up the universal (aka catholic) church.

In short, you are just plain wrong.

Just a bit to support my claims. Here is a short list of dates to start you off.

C 325: The Arian controversy erupts in Alexandria, causing widespread violence and disruptions among Christians, inspiring Constantine to evoke
325: The First Council of Nicaea, which establishes the Nicene Creed, declaring the belief of orthodox Trinitarian Christians in the Holy Trinity. The form of the Nicene Creed has undergone controversy over the Filioque clause but is still used by the Catholic Church to this day.
November 24, 380: Emperor Theodosius I is baptised a Christian and declares Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
382: The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I sets the Canon of the Bible, listing the accepted books of the Old Testament and the New Testament. No others are to be considered scripture. See also Biblical Canon.
391: The Theodosian decrees outlaw most Pagan rituals still practiced in Rome, thereby encouraging much of the population to convert to Christianity.
400: Jerome's Vulgate Latin Bible translation is published. This is a highly influential compilation of Old Testament and New Testament bible books that become the basis for the Bible which is known today.
431: The Council of Ephesus declares that Jesus existed both as Man and God simultaneously, clarifying his status in the Holy Trinity. The meaning of the Nicene Creed is also declared a permanent holy text of the early church.
September 4, 476: Emperor Romulus Augustus is deposed in Rome, marked by many as the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The focus of the early Church switches to expanding in the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, with its capitol at Constantinople. Eventually the Church splits into Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism in the 11th Century.

Here you will note that the Christian church does not become the official religion of Rome under Constantine. In fact, it is not until 380 CE, which happens to be 55 years after the Nicene Creed was formulated, under another Emperor all together. This emperor was baptised before he made the religion the official religion of Rome.

You will also note the split between the Eastern Orthodox, and the RCC does not occur until long after the Nicene Creed was formulated.

Now, I think it would be appropriate to repost my comment, which you keep ignoring.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I think it is wise to start by supporting my claims that the Nicene Creed is the foundation for Christian doctrine before I walk you through the doctrines supported and taught by the creed. Not only have I said this, Thom has said this. Still, you are less likely to accept our claims about our religion while insisting that we must accept your claims over the other research we have found. That is why I am giving you a few quotes from the Wikipedia article on the subject. All of the quotes may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicean_creed#Controversy_of_Christian_definition

The Nicene Creed (Latin: Symbolum Nicenum), Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is the most widespread Christian statement of faith.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the most widely accepted creed in Christianity. Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite)Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant churches.

Here you will note the general use of this creed including in the Eastern Orthodox, which goes directly against a claim you made in a previous comment.

The purpose of the creed is to establish conformity of belief among Christians, and by public professions of the faith, to identify heretics or any disconformity to the Bible within each community. The Creed is an epitome, not a full definition, of what is required for personal orthodoxy. It was hoped that by memorizing this summary of the faith, lay people without extensive theological training would still be able to recognize deviations from orthodox doctrines based on the Bible.

The Nicene Creed, both in its original and revised formulas, is an implicit condemnation of specific errors. Thus, as different variations in Christian belief evolved in the 4th century and were perceived as threats, new phrases were seen to be needed, like amendments to a constitution. Just as one can perceive the historical developments of a constitutional society through amendments to its constitution, a careful and knowledgeable reader can identify the particular theological developments in a religious society that enforces a creed.

Of course, this paragraph explains how the creed speaks to doctrine, and why it was so important.

To the majority of modern Christians the Nicene Creed is regarded as the quintessential expression of Christian faith. In this traditional belief, all proper Christians affirm the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is referred to by Roman Catholics and Orthodox as the "symbol of faith", and its recitation is often part of Christian worship services. In the Catholic Mass, it is also referred to as the "Profession of Faith".

However, some evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura reject the Creed (and especially its recitation), not necessarily for its content but simply because it is not found in the Bible.

This set of paragraphs makes the use in modern times very clear. Now I know you will want to focus on how certain Evangelical churches reject the creed. Of course, you need to pay close attention here. They do not reject the "content" of the creed, rather, they just do not use it in liturgy because it is not expressly found in scripture.

Some religious denominations such as Oneness Pentecostals, Arianism, churches of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to Christian scripture and identify themselves emphatically as Christians, but reject the Nicene Creed as an error or a misinterpretation and further reject the more recent Lausanne Covenant that affirms the Creed. As a result, many other Christians regard these denominations as not being Christian at all. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for persons in theologically adventurous "mainline denominations" to not speak the Nicene creed or to omit those portions with which they take issue. For example, a feminist theologian might simply be silent, rather than refer to God as "He" or "father."

I thought this would be a good place to end because this paragraph says exactly what I had said previously. Moreover, it specifically lists the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(underlining added for emphasis)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have taken the liberty of underlining different words and phrases to emphasis that which you are wrong about. If you need further explanation, please don't hesitate to ask. |< << >> >|

by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @ 10:19 PM

Well, that is an interesting point of view. For one the Nicene creed mentions the catholic church meaning universal. I direct your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church where the Catholic Church is identified more than 200 years prior to the Nicene Creed. Please inspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church for the History of the Catholic Church. It is clear that the catholic church spoken of in the creed was not the heretic Protestants who left the Catholic Church about a thousand years later (dah). The Catholics must have a real headspin over the Protestants pretending they have the Universal Church when 1 in 7 on the planet are Catholic. Before you continue with your posts here, please provide direct references to your sources, considering the provocative comments you have made. Thanks for your contribution.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 2:44 AM

I did provide you with a direct source for my comments. All you have to do is click the link. As for the dates, you can easily find that in wikipedia also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church Finally, I think it is important to note the difference between the "universal catholic church" and the "Roman Catholic Church." I am sure that you can pick out the difference. For people who might be a little bit slower than yourself, the Roman Catholic church officially started when it became the state religion of Rome. It does trace its origins al the way back to Christ even claiming that Peter was the first pope of Rome, but here we are talking about "roots" not official institution. Here is another example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox "It[The Eastern Orthodox Church] traces its origins to the original undivided Christian community founded by Jesus for salvation, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles at the time of Pentecost and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession." Interesting that the origins of the Eastern Orthodox extend to the exact same origins of the Catholic Church even including apostolic succession. "These churches recognize each other as being "canonical" and recognise the authority of seven ecumenical councils: the Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon of 451, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople in 680, and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Interesting. "Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split during the Great Schism that is conventionally dated to 1054, although it was in fact a gradual process rather than a singular event, exacerbated by cultural and linguistic divisions between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West." Fascinating. So the Eastern Church was started at the exact same time as the RCC as part of the "undivided church," aka universal, or catholic. It is officially recognized in 1054, though there were several events leading up to this date that pushed te two segments apart from each other. Like I said, I'm suprised someone so intelligent would need me to help them to grasp the simple, but I guess that sometimes it is easy to miss the camel when fishing for that gnat. BTW, it would be super duper if you would occasionally provide some proof to support your oppinions. I have been very good about giving you hard fact in the face of your myths, but you just continue to give oppinion based on ... suposition and inference maybe?		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 10:25 AM

My observation is that when Stealth says "His blog is not a democracy" that must mean that He doesn't have to play by his own rules. Maybe that is why "many" get tired of the games and just quite playing. Myths and deception can't be back up with truth because they always contradict themselves and have to be continually "restated" -Does that sound familiar...hmmmmmmm? Oh my another "Lucy-ism" -		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 12:46 PM

Puri: You have to be real careful of wikipedia. It can be edited by anyone, anonymously. Sometimes they need to lock some topics that are controversial. To completely depend upon it as your source of truth on a given subject is certainly foolish. Like talk radio it is good to get a point of view, however biased. But I suggest you go to unaffiliated, nonreligious sites where the writers have no stake in what they report. I presume truth is paramount for you. We are talking about history that brought the creed into existance. We know there was a separate organization of the church very early in Jesusalem. Peter head that Church. If he traveled to Rome as it is reported by those sympathetic to Catholicism then it becomes dicey. In my book, that gives legitimacy to that church of Rome. But there is trouble with that view for me. Peter contributed nothing to the Bible now that we have the technology to determine those things. I believe this void indicates that Peter had nothing to do with the Church of Rome. So we had competing factions early on. The divisions became more and more pronounced after the persecution and death of the Apostles and their followers in Jerusalem. If he did go to Rome, perhaps he had a falling out when he saw what he saw. The power of Rome was not found in the Church. It was found in the Government. History shows that the supreme Church, the most powerful and most populous segment of the church was in Rome. Supposedly, the successors of Peter became, each of them, popes. Popes ordained Bishops and 300 years later we have those Bishops the only people invited to Nicea. The church in Jerusalem did not have the power of Rome. (religioustolerance.org) We had factions early on and full scale war as time went by. The victorious Bishops of the Church of Rome (whatever you want to call it) were the only ones invited to the party at Nicea. The Nicene Creed came from these Bishops because that is the way Constantine required it.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 2:18 PM

Lucy: Good Morning. I really appreciate Puri's attempts at commenting on topic. If you can contribute to topic, then you will more skillfully hide your dislike for how I govern my little home here.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 2:25 PM

Perhaps, if as you must believe there were bishops from the faction in Jerusalem (not the puppets in Jerusalem), we should identify him from among the attendees and read what he might have said over time. The profoundly immense problem with that strategy is that the winners write the history, always destroying in the process. And the winners in the Christian world back then were the Catholics. The losers was the rest of the world.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 2:35 PM

It seems as though we have Peter, James, and Paul pointed to by others as their church leader: Peter (ROme), James (Jerusalem) and Paul (Gentiles). Not to say I think they were competing against each other, certainly not. But I recall scripturally Paul admonishing Corinth or somewhere that they should not be factioning as he views they were. Over time that is exactly what happened to a point now where it is completely out of control with divisive denominations and competing faiths.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 2:42 PM

Stealth, I use wikipedia because it is generaly unbiased (since it can be altered by anyone) and because everyone has access to it, unlike sources in my personal library. I find it interestign that it is the only source you have used, and you have only used it to support one small part fo your claims, yet you admonish me for using it. Now you provide a second source claiming that the "unaffiliated unreligious" sources have nothing to establish. The fact is, though, that these sites all have agendas. It is quite apparent when viewing the sources that they intend to undercut and discredit Christian history at the expense of truth. It would be liek going o Dan Brown's website to establish the true origins of the Nicene Creed. As for the rest of your claims in your replies. The problem is, you are trying to overcome that which is accepted by most as understood. This means the burden of proof lies with you. Here is a good example. You claim that Peter contributed nothing to the Bible. This is just plain false. On in very recent history has the authorship been in question, and only by liberal scholars that can be cited as questioning the authorship of every single book of the Bible Even if you could prove that 1st and 2nd Peter were writting by someone other than Peter, we still have many quotes from Peter in the Gospels and the Book of Acts as well as refferences to him in Paul's writtings that lead us to believe that he was certainly a very important figure in the early church. Anyways, my point here is, I have given you a good deal of "unbiased" proof and yet you have not supported your oppinions at all.		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 3:28 PM

Stealth, I found another source that should be acceptable to you. It is an article on Columbia University's website. Check it out. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm This article focuses on the history, purpose, proceedings, and outcome of the first Nicene council especially speaking to the role of Constantine. Here are the concluding statements. "Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, "When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?" and "never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church." He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens). The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it."(underlining added for emphasis) I hope Columbia University is an acceptably unbiased source.		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 4:09 PM

Stealth, on a side note, I thikn the hawaiian air is doing you worlds of good. I have noticed that you seem to be much more congenial in these past few days. Even in your instructions to stay on topic towards Lucy. I aplaud your recent hospitality, and I hope that the continued cordial dialogue will be benificial to all.		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 5:34 PM

You state: " It is quite apparent when viewing the sources that they intend to undercut and discredit Christian history at the expense of truth." That has to be true for somebody in every case. An objective view of something exposes the sacred cows of everyone. That is very true of the LDS. I was never aware of the 100+ offshoots of the LDS Church until I studied what they wrote. The religious zealots tend to be the least objective. Yes I frequently go to wik but it always broadens my study from there. There's no doubt as it says, that the Nicene Creed a consequence of conformity for the Christians that had the benefit of the influence of Law and the approval of the POPE.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 5:51 PM

Stealth When speaking of different religions one thing I have noticed is that what you say about "The religious zealots tend to be the least objective" is most often true. I have also notice that religious cults will always say that you have to "join" their religion to be saved. I find both statements a "red flag" and a warning to take a second look. The very idea of Christians following Christ's teachings shows us that it is not the "church" but the "Word" that has the "saving grace" and only Jesus is the instrument of both. I believe it is Christ's church that we embody and not an actual building. To clarify more, when we give our lives to Jesus and follow his teachings we become the body of His church. That is what I feel and believe with regards to following a Christian religion. So if I visit a different Christian structure each week - I am still going to "Christ's church and a member" as long as it is teaching "biblically" sound doctrine. I hope that clarifies my Christian beliefs, at least regarding religious places and named classifications.		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 6:12 PM

I agree that what you post is a proper interpretation of the article where you link. And I believe it is a justifiable point of view from one person's perspective. You will note that the the bulk of his information is sourced at one book, "Faith of our Early Fathers", written by Father William Jurgens, a Catholic Historian. The writer of this article is an S. Brandt from the University of Illinois. Brandt is nowhere to be found in the extensitve University of Illinois website....so was probably a Catholic grad student. Please note the reference to the Catholic Church (capitalized) on the link you provide...referencing Athanasius in his reference of the Bishops being Catholic: The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338).		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 6:15 PM

Stealth, what I was saying regarding the source "religioustolerance.org" is that it is not "unbiased." In fact, it is highly biased. Anyways, this is not the point. You still haven't answered the objections to your myth that I brough except to try and sugest that my source was not satisfactorily unbiased. I have been waiting for some time and I can only assume that my initial objections from over a week ago are acceptable. Still, on your advice, I did seek out other sources that can be easily verified. I have about half a dozen sources I could quote, but it would be a little more difficult for you to verify unless you happen to have the sources in your library, and even less liekly that anyone else would be able to verify all my sources. Then there are the 5 educational libraries I have access to in town, and our very well stocked public libraries. I have to admit, living in a college town does have some major benifits.		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 6:27 PM

Thank you Lucy, I respect your decision to travel about the Christian world of churches. As an LDS, I do not believe one needs to be LDS to be saved....not to the salvation you have described. But my previous LDS days, my wife and I came upon "The Way", they wanting all our money and to join them in life as well. Very weird but they really connected with the 60's commune flower child christian life style eminating from California at that time. You seem to have the same point of view as someone I have grown to immensely respect....you might want to look him up on Wikapedia - Kierkegaard. But caution my friend, the invitation of the mortal Jesus was to do just what you have developed such a suspicion about. He had "the way" and it was the only way to get to the Eternal Father. And He had the audacity to say He was the Son. And, of course, there were many others like him preaching. None really like Him though. Again, thank you for the clarification.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 6:32 PM

Stealth I absolutely agree that you must follow “Jesus” and “His Way” – in fact He is the only way to God our Father. Jesus said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” He is the Church and I am part of His Church Body. He is the only begotten Son of the Father. I believe that He is the last of His kind that we will ever see (the Holy Son of God, our Prince of Peace, our final Prophet) and we need no other until he returns. He has opened the gates of communication, through Him, to communicate directly with our Father in Heaven. We receive revelations directly and personally through the Holy Spirit. Until Jesus returns for us one day we await that hour until we will be with Him eternally. (Again that is my belief and I would venture to say most Christians feel the same way.) It is also my experience and not just a figure of speach. As far as your “friend” Kierkegaard's influence on the world, it has also been considerable both in psychology and the literary concepts of learning. I never know what to think of people who are so good in each field, as they tend to change their outlooks quite often and it is hard to keep up with all of their ideas. I thought for a time of venturing out in the Psych’ world but that was many years ago and I honestly regret not persuing that course of work, along with legal lines that I wanted to combine the two techniques together.		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 7:31 PM

A further comment on the link. For me it doesn't speak in support of the point that all branches of the Christian Church were admitted. So late in the real history of the church this creed was determined and at that was not determined except after what seems an endless period of time. Given the Arian controversy occurred within the catholic church and Arius was excommunicated, he could not have been anything but catholic himself at the time of his excommunication. There was an established singular church at this council. There were no representatives of any other church at this council. Certainly there were dissenters who were never represented at the council. I think we know what became of them. It was the same thing that became of them prior to the council.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 7:44 PM

Mythbuster # 8

Stealth-myth “The Nicene Creed was adopted by Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church at the direction of the pagan Emperor Constantine because the Roman Catholic Church by law was the state church of the Roman Empire .”
●There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church” in 325 AD at the first Nicene Council. There was only the one universal church.
●The greatest majority of the bishops came from the Eastern churches and not from Rome or the West.
●Constantine was not happy with the Nicene Creed, he had hoped for a less divisive creed that would allow the Arians to also adopt it. The Arians did not hold to the Trinitarian belief.
●Constantine’s son Constantine II opposed the Nicene Creed and sided with the Arians and persecuted the orthodox believers for over 60 years. The force of law was used against those who held to the Nicene Creed.
●Virtually everything Stealth propagates here is historically wrong.

Stealth-myth “The Protestant Reformation initiated widespread rejection of most things Catholic. As for the Nicene Creed, it had soft enough language that it proved quite malleable.”
●As the word “Protest-ant” implies, the Reform-ation was a movement to protest certain practices and beliefs in the Roman Church and to reform those things. Please notice the obvious use of words here. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are joined together in their common beliefs expressed in Scripture and summarized in the Nicene Creed.

Stealth-myth “The “one baptism” required in the Nicene Creed, administered through the Holy Priesthood of the One Universal Catholic Church, was to morph again and again as Protestants attempted to restore true Christian worship. Then, without central Priesthood authority, the Protestant churches and denominations began rejecting each other as well. The one baptism of the Catholic Bishops is now the tens of thousands of different baptisms of the heretic Protestants.
● Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still all believe in one baptism. The mode of baptism is what is disputed. Catholics do not consider orthodox Protestants (those who hold to the Nicene Creed) as heretics. Protestants do not consider Catholics or Eastern Orthodox as heretics for the same reason. Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all consider LDS doctrine to be heretical because it denies the basic tenets of Scripture as summarized in the Nicene Creed. It is as simple as that.

Stealth-myth: “ the original meanings of the Nicene creed have been lost to all Protestants.
●This is perhaps the most fallacious statement on this post—and that is saying a lot. The central tenets of the Nicene Creed are the Trinity and deity of Christ. These are not “lost to all Protestants.” However, they are completely and utterly lost to the LDS which deny both as understood from the time of the Apostles to 2006.
●The reason that those from heretical religions are so adamant about discrediting the Nicene Creed is because it so clearly defines their heresy.

Stealth-myth: “ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no more depart from the original meaning in the Nicene Creed than does anyone else….excepting the Catholics themselves.”
●Here we have the second most fallacious statement on this post. The LDS depart completely from the original meaning of the Trinity and the deity of Christ and therefore they deny the meaning of the Nicene Creed. They are similar in belief’s to Arians. Arius believed that Jesus Christ was a created being. So do the LDS. The Nicene Creed was formulated to define such a belief as heretical. LDS belief is heretical as defined by the Nicene Creed.

|< << >> >|

by Thomisticguy (PM , CC ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @ 8:51 PM

And Thom, may I approach the throne? Because we must obviously accept your words simply because you speak them. By what authority do you provide your 'opinion'? Perhaps it is the "more perfect intellect and moral judgment". For you provide us with no source at all for the grandiose language you provide. You can't bust anything without authority, Thom. -------------------------------------------------- You could suggest that Jesus attended the meeting and dictated the creed himself for all the source material you have provided. I hope you are still reading. It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church (or as might be the case, the catholic church) had Bishops that attended the meeting. For one of the most recognized Catholic historians sourced that statement concerning "the Catholic Church", ironically, in the link that Puri provided. (did you bother to check that?) It is a Historical fact that the first Bishop of Rome identified as POPE was so named well before Nicea. But apparently it was not to the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. It is a Historical fact that the first known use of the term "Catholic Church" was in a letter by Ignatius of Antioch in 107, who wrote in a letter to the Smyrnaeans : "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Did you miss those capitals, for it is the capitals that identify a specific organization. It is a historical fact that the first Bishop of Rome, Marcellinus was identified as pope. He died in 304, 21 years BEFORE the first council of Nicea. That would be 77 years before the second council. So, the universal church as a Pope in Rome with Bishops. Sounds likely the headquarters of this Church must be in Jerusalem (NOT). Tell me about the source that denies these known facts. ______________________________________________________________ Second, please tell me your source that suggests that the Bishops from oh so far away were not Catholic bishops and if not, what independent churches did they represent who have Bishops that reverence the Pope of Rome? And if they were independent of Rome, how did they become Catholic so soon after anyway? And if your opinion is grounded in truth, what does it matter? For you say they are one universal church that dominated the scene, and I say it was one Catholic Church that dominated the scene. And with it there was one baptism as the creed states. Something is really amiss here. Whatever it was, it became the one Catholic Church that profoundly dominated the scene after Nicea as evidenced by all that transpired soon after!! If there was such conformity with the universal church you suppose, why did "The Rock" the man Christ himself selected as The MAN, PETER!! Why is it now determined that he wrote nothing acceptable to the universal church to put in the Bible? (The answer is easy by the way.) The answer has something to do with the man in what he wrote. Nothing that he wrote was considered inspired!! my goodness, what does that say about The Universal Church? --------------------------------------------------- Third, where have you Been? I had requests of you from your last tirade concerning my supposed insults against your character or my revealing the wretchedness of my own character. You produced nothing then in support of your views. Let me guess. None of that will change with your latest edict.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 3:45 AM

For the most recent observer, the reason why this discussion is important is this. Where the Nicene Creed was composed by the bishops of the Catholic Church of Rome, it wasn't originally universal in origin. If it is not universal, then the one baptism that it requires is specifically the Roman Catholic baptism. That being the case, all protestant denominations depart as much as the LDS from the requirements of the Creed thus eliminating all of us from being Christian or forcing the fact that the LDS are no less Christian than the bulk of Protestants. Remember, we already determined there was no consensus through an earlier myth. Only 2 protestants took it upon themselves to take it on. With all who read me, not too confident are they. For good reason. There are many a Christian that consider the LDS as Christian anyway.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 3:55 AM

To Keep things simple, The Deposition of Arius at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-18.htm#P2212_843598 Any confusion here about things Catholic? By the way the entire document speaks of the factionalism that greeted the Nicean Creed and came as a consequence of it. You certainly must have been aware of the the subsequent torture and murder of countless Bishops in the name of conforming to the doctrines of the creed. Thom, you have written many times of the detestable Islam who used and continue to use these tactics. Do you find them acceptable here to prop up the creed? Is this the essence of Christian persuasion? Is this not absolutely opposed to all things Christ? The murder and torture became the rule as a result of Nicea because it became LAW. Just like Islam. We have learned as children how a millenia later, the courageous came to our continent to escape this form of Christianity. What a terrible time for true disciples of Christ. Through your words and in your present silence, you cover this wretched history with a thin layer of white plaster... an ancient Jesus metaphor: the whited sepulcher.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 2:31 PM

Stealth, Thom essentially said the same things I did, and I proveded proofs for my statements, which you have not addressed except to claim they are not acceptable. For the most part your claims have not been supported by any proof except your own oppinions. Try a few quotes or something. I know I have, but you intentionally ignore them because you are not satisfied with the source. I knwo you think that because Dan Brown agrees with your oppinions in his very popular Davinci Code that this makes it well known fact, but Dan Brown's version of history is fiction. There are many many sources that debunk the myths propogated in Dan Brown's fictional book, and I would not rely on a work of fiction as my source for facts. Of course, you will point out that you do not quote Dan Brown, but the things you are saying might as well be quotes from him. Since all of these myths are also addressed by him, and are busted my dozens of well researched books, I still say the burden of proof lies with you.		\|< << >> >\|
by PuriChristos (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 5:59 PM

Excuse me Puri. Thom provides no sources. His accounts are not historically verified by him. He knows his sources are are deeeply biased. Otherwise he would provide them. I have indicated how your sources actually identify the Catholic Chruch as a living, breathing institution at the time of events at Nicea. Your sources other than that are anonymous. I guess this discussion has ended.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 8:42 PM

Stealth I am still waiting for a response to my posting? Did you forget about me? And you are right - absolutely NO Orthodox Christian church considers LDS/Mormon in the Christian group as they consider them a cult. But that doesn't mean some other people in the world doesn't.		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @ 9:54 PM

I provided an unbiased source suggesting there are many Protestant Christians who consider the LDS Christian.....Frankly, I don't think the average Christian - churched or unchurch - gives a wit about the subject of whether they believe us to be Christian or not. It frankly doesn't matter to us. We are who we are.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @ 2:07 AM

Stealth Your comment: It frankly doesn't matter to us. We are who we are. Response: That is what it is all about - Whatever you choose to be - be proud of your choice and Claim it - Congrats on claiming Mormonism no matter what we think it is! If you can't be proud of it and claim it - change it, that's what I live by and regard as important guidlines. I know you know that we will all stand before God someday - so we had better be aware of our choices - we will account for them - good - bad - or indifferent. Actually I was speaking about the response to my other statement regarding "Kierkegaard's." but this one will do. Thanks for the insight - it was very reveiling. Have a great day.		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @ 10:20 AM

Lucy: in brief, Kierkegaard refected the organized Christian religion of his day in part because a form of Christianity was the state religion. That is, anyone born was authomatically a member. He felt the church that he was looking at had been so diluted that it was meaningless. This however did not reduce his enthusiasm for being a real Christian. He felt the larger a given church gets the less Christian it becomes. I am inclined to believe him for his time.		\|< << >> >\|
by Stealtharachnid (PM , CC ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @ 12:20 PM

Stealth I get your point. I was thinking that because he was so Physc' minded - you never knew if he was saying anything just to get a reaction or it was what he really thought. Especially when he could right about the reaction. I get that sometimes you play that game and maybe that is what you admired about him - his ability to take it both ways. Just an observation and sometimes I admire that ability as long as it doesn't hurt people, but gives them something solid to think about.		\|< << >> >\|
by LookinforLucy (PM , CC ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @ 12:32 PM