OK ..... So instead of supporting a Mormon, Try explaining to God how you supported:
The subjection of the Holy Bible to the Non-Biblical Nicene Creeds which was in-part politically dictated by a non-baptised Roman Emperor in 325 A.D. and coerced on the Bishops by threat of banishment.
Of course, after the Nicene Creed was on its way out to the junkyard of History a Christian Apostate Emperor by the name of Justin the Apostate brought it back to create a fission in the expanding non-Nicene Christianity in hopes of restoring paganism. And of course, the Nicene Creed finally triumphed on threat of death by Emperor Theodosius II. By the way, God who historically rewarded a nation for righteousness, unexpectedly held his hand and 600 years of dominance of the Roman Empire fell immediately after Theodosius’s treachery.
Of course, I could go into the weak underpinning of the Creed, and how it contradicts the vast amount of evidence in the Bible ..... but, no.
You just tell yourself that your obeying God by not sustaining a Latter Day Saint .... while you in full conscience perpetuate a biblical and religious fraud just because it’s 1687 years old.
I’m sure God will find your answer troubling and hypochrytical.
Or you could be the Christian that you say you are and do as Christ teaches by pulling the 2x4 beam out of your own eye, before you try pull the sliver out of Mitt Romneys!
As you can see here, The Nicene Creed according to the scriptures, every concept in the Nicene Creed is taken directly from and supported by scripture. In other words, the creed is not superior to the Bible; it is not a replacement for the Bible; it merely summarizes some of its key teachings.
Of course, after the Nicene Creed was on its way out to the junkyard of History a Christian Apostate Emperor by the name of Justin the Apostate brought it back to create a fission in the expanding non-Nicene Christianity in hopes of restoring paganism.
I was not aware of this. Do you have any well-established non-biased historical sources that back this up? If so, would you please provide them.
I could go into the weak underpinning of the Creed, and how it contradicts the vast amount of evidence in the Bible
Please do. I have provided you with a source that does the opposite. I am more than interested in learning if you can back up your assertion.
You just tell yourself that your (sic) obeying God by not sustaining a Latter Day Saint .... while you in full conscience perpetuate a biblical and religious fraud just because it’s 1687 years old.
I provided 14 reasons why I cannot support a Latter Day Saint HERE. You were unwilling and/or unable to contradict a single one. Instead, you resorted to an unsubstantiated and obviously incorrect attack on a statement of faith ... or in other words, rather than rebut facts, you attempted to change the subject.
Conclusion: I challenge you to substantiate your assertions with evidence. Furthermore, I challenge you to answer the issues raised in my original response. And finally, I challenge you to do the latter before you embark on another wild goose chase.
Wow! a straw man, an attack against Christianity, a personal attack and mind reading...all in one little sentence!
Will you get a "helping hands" yellow T shirt for this triumph, teppe?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Let's see...
We are being admonished by a person that considers it ok that GOD's Eternal Covenant concerning plural marriage has been ignored for what? 122 years now? except by those JUDGED severely by Salt Lake City 'authorities' and EXcommunicated to the ONLY true MORMON believers?
Those in Colorado City, Eldorado and Hildale?
58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
I think you should. Make it a thread, maybe even a caucus thread. I would be interested in reading it.
Point out the errors of the Creed. Using the Bible. C’mon, prove your assertion because your claim is false.
The purpose of the creed is a unifying statement of faith, one written to counter various heresies and conflicts that were popping up. It is a statement of faith that is biblical.
The Nicaean creed, and the other creeds (including the apostles) agree on all the primary doctrines and all are used by the TRUE Church (Christianity). It is a false assumption that Christianity stands only on the Nicaean creed.
And I also would like a source for your claim that the creed was on its way out. Reliable source, please.