[DelphiUser]

Yes, we are clear. You are clearly willing to put forth a conveniently revisionist history of orthodox Christian doctrine,

Thank you, I assure you I have far more backup than the anti's here do with what they say about my church, did you bother to go to the Documents at the Catholic encyclopedia, or did you just decide I was wrong from "Common knowledge"?

couple it with a gross misrepresentation of the means by which the doctrine of the Trinity is derived,

Did you read the Catholic records, or not? That is where I Got all that, from the actual historical records. If you have a beef, start asking the Catholics to conceal their history form the Internet (it's too late BTW)

and then pass off "my version" of Jesus as being the product of a sun-worshiping emperor while yours is "defined by the Bible"

Honestly, that is my perspective, but then I know I have a perspective, you are still acting as if your perspective is reality, LOL!

(and not by some false prophet who sings things in his hat and can make a good story out of an incomplete portion of hieroglyphics).

Joseph may or may not have sung through his hat, but I could make some comments about people speaking through theirs here.

You have certainly perfected the art of playing the victim here.

Man! and I was going for Comic relief! Lets see "Tragedy + Distance (in either Time or Space) = Humor" Yep the formula is still right. Must be my delivery.

Your argument above MIGHT have helped you if you were arguing against somebody who put their trust in creeds and councils over and above Scripture, but I do not place such trust in them.

So you do not buy into the great three in one Oil Theory? How about the Bible, is it complete and inerrant?

For one blustering on about everybody misrepresenting their beliefs, you sure do a fantastic job of just that very thing.

Really? Where exactly did I get my facts wrong? Please read my page and tell me any place where I have my facts wrong. I also tried to keep clear with formating and language where I am quoting and where I am Opining.

[Frumanchu]

Did you read the Catholic records, or not? That is where I Got all that, from the actual historical records. If you have a beef, start asking the Catholics to conceal their history form the Internet (it's too late BTW)

Well, given the fact that you posted convenient excerpts of the article in support of a presupposition, it's not really the article I take issue with. You are trying to present the Council of Nicea as being a purely political event with no practical significance. The article itself presents it as anything but. Arianism had already been condemned soundly at Alexandria. The church already recognized it as heresy. The notion that Constantine's recognition of this as a major division in the church that needed definitive address somehow renders the Council anything but what it truly was (the church coming together to formally and institutionally condemn heresy) is both fallacious and absurd. But such a position sure makes for a convenient justification of your own heresy :)

Honestly, that is my perspective, but then I know I have a perspective, you are still acting as if your perspective is reality, LOL!

My perspective is not the one in direct contradiction to the Bible, friend.

Joseph may or may not have sung through his hat, but I could make some comments about people speaking through theirs here.

So you question whether or not Joseph Smith placed a "Seer Stone" inside a hat and buried his face in the hat in order to translate the "Reformed Egyption" on the gold plates Moroni revealed to him into the Book of Mormon?

So you do not buy into the great three in one Oil Theory? How about the Bible, is it complete and inerrant?

I absolutely believe in the Trinity...in one God who is three in Person and one in essence. I do not need to place the authority of the Council of Nicea over that of Scripture to believe so, for the Scriptures themselves attest to this truth. And yes, the original Scriptures were complete and inerrant.

Really? Where exactly did I get my facts wrong? Please read my page and tell me any place where I have my facts wrong. I also tried to keep clear with formating and language where I am quoting and where I am Opining.

Well the most obvious is the fact that, at least in the case of your recount of the Nicene Council, you use a rather convenient historical interpretation (with no real hard basis in fact...just your own spin on one particular group's recount of the event) as an excuse to dismiss a theological doctrine (namely, the Trinity).

The sum total of your argument is:

The doctrine of the Trinity was defined by the Nicene Council.
The Nicene Council was the result of Constantine's request for a peaceful resolution to theological conflict within the church.
Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

That argument is completely unsound and invalid.

Not only that, but you claim that the Trinity was the "creation of a pagan emperor named Constantine." No person with any basic level of reading comprehension would draw that conclusion from the link you provided. As I pointed out, Arianism had already been condemned in Alexandria well before Constantine requested the Nicene Council. If you wanted to be even remotely accurate, you would readily admit that if anything it was the creation of the bishops at the Council, not Constantine. But having the doctrine be the product of bishops from throughout Christendom doesn't have the same dramatic effect does it?

Moreover, you say "this was [Constantine's] expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event." The last portion of that sentence links to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Nicene Council. NOWHERE IN THAT ARTICLE is there any quotation or citation from records Constantine had kept of the event. But again, it has a much more dramatic effect to claim otherwise, doesn't it?

You are speaking as though you've presented this ironclad case against orthodox Christianity, but the truth is you do not even have the basic facts correct, let alone a sound logical argument against orthodox Christian theology.

Much of the rest of your page has the same glaring errors. Consider the following:

We believe we are Christian: A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

Mormonism does not even MEET the definition (from Wikipedia of all places) that you provide! MORMONISM IS NOT MONOTHEISTIC!!!

I'm sorry, but you are NOT a Christian and NOT on solid ground at all in your arguments. QED