THE COUNCIL OF NICEA 325A.D.,and CONSTANTINE (Jesus, moral)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Scott1

I could care less how you describe yourself... my opinion is permitted here and I never made reference to you personally...

If I had said "Catholics are not Christians," I would fully expect to hear you and every other Catholic to stand up and say, "I am a Christian." You would have every right to do so.

.... and while I disagree with you, I will not make this personal.... you seem to have lost your ability to discuss LDS faith without freaking out... so I will bow out of this thread.

What is going on, Scott? How did I "freak out"? I'm glad to see (based on your subsequent post) that you decided not to bow out of this thread after all. But I truly am confused. You said, "for anyone in the LDS faith to believe anything of history in the first century of Christianity would force you to reject your faith... and I don't see that happening anytime soon!" I replied that I wouldn't trade my faith for "man-made doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries." I fail to see that as "freaking out." If you believe that the doctrines in question were divinely inspired, please tell me why you feel this way. If you feel uncomfortable in discussing the subject, please tell me that, too, and I'll bow out. I just don't see why the hostility all of a sudden.

Kathryn

[dan]

Originally Posted by Scott1

While I respect your right to call yourself Christian, Mormon, Smithians, Muslim, or whatever you choose... please understand that my Church has been here since the time of Christ, and even if you choose to not believe that, you must understand my attempt to classify what is and what is not Christian... or have we become so willy-nilly that any discussion that does not fit within your guidelines will be attacked?

My problem lies with the fact that you allow everyone else on the planet who has apparently robbed you of sole proprietorship of the name Christian the opportunity to use it without consequence (except for the millions raped, plundered and murdered along the way to this "sole proprietorship"), but we have done something so egregious that the great Catholic church must put its foot down. I do not recognize your right to classify Christians any more than I appreciate your comparing my religion to hitting a ball with a fish. I respect you as a human being and a brother in God's family; I would defend your right to free speech and your own opinion to the death; I love you for believing in Christ, and I believe you are just as much a Christian as any Mormon (and moreso than quite a few of them) but I simply do not subscribe to your "we got here first" argument. I stand by my statement: the doctrine you claim all Christians adhere to is Catholic doctrine, pure and simple. Not all Christians, even within your acceptable realm of Christiandom, think that way.

[Scott1]

Since you as a Mod have decided that this is somehow on-topic for this post, let us continue:

Originally Posted by Katzpur

If I had said "Catholics are not Christians," I would fully expect to hear you and every other Catholic to stand up and say, "I am a Christian." You would have every right to do so.

Ummmm, no. Or else every post like this one:

As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that this authority was lost shortly after the deaths of the Apostles and that the Church Christ established fell into Apostasy. For nearly two thousand years, the Church operated without this authority. Hence, the ordinances that were performed were not approved by God.
Christian Salvation

... would be followed by shouts of outrage and whining about "intollerance" and "prejudice".... I guess I'm tired of being told that the ECF's, many of whom I hold near and dear to my heart and pray with often ARE APOSTATE HERETICS. Gee, I guess as long as you allow me to call myself a Christian everything is A-OK, right?

I just don't see why the hostility all of a sudden.

You keep trying to make this personal... it is not. While I can respect and love LDS members, I have every right to believe you/they are not Christians... if you choose to view that as hostile, have fun.... I'm just offering up my beliefs, same as you and your friends calling my Church apostate.... or did you intend to be hostile?

[fromthe heart]

My dear friends..seems Satan is very hard at work here and allowing the space in written words to be misunderstood..I think it would be nice if all involved here just took a step back and allowed for some reflecting....perhpas no one is attacking anyone and words just haven't conveyed properly how one is trying to say what is in their heart. When we allow feelings to over-run we can see things not really there so please my friends (both whom are Christians) take a breath and perhaps a prayer before responding to one another. You are both special people whom God loves...lets try to be more Christ like???

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Try to do whatever pleases you. What you were asked to do, and what you've failed to do, is substantiate your claim that Nicea defined Biblical Canon.

Hi Jay,

Swoop in and swoop back out. Could you elucidate on this subject? Iacob also states that the Council of Nicea is not the central act that decided the canon. It appears to be the main influence by unifying a doctrine from which the organization followed however. Want to share something here? Even a statement on what you think the relevance of this council was or wasn't?

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by Scott1

How do you explain Trinitarian theology pre-Nicea?
Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Hi Scott1

This is no proof of the concept of the Trinity, only that it was a topic for debate before Constantine arrived on the scene. I think that Christians have the right to challenge the validity of this concept. This challenge is also taken personally by Catholics. I, for one, try to make the point that any criticism of the Catholic Church is not directed at people personally, it is a matter of examining the Church and its doctrine.

I think that it is ironic, and this is not directed at you as you are a person stating his viewpoint, that there is an outcry of Catholic bashing and anti-catholic propaganda nowadays. The Catholic Church has been bashing opponents for centuries. It has not been a case of showing others the light, only taking out the opposition. And so, you cannot take this personally if people have formed an opinion about historical fact.

As you have been a person who treats others as fellow humans and has practiced the fellowship of this forum, your viewpoint is just as valuable as anyone's. While I may disagree with you at times, this is the way it is done and I am glad to be a member of this fellowship.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

This is no proof of the concept of the Trinity, only that it was a topic for debate before Constantine arrived on the scene.

I disagree.

I think that Christians have the right to challenge the validity of this concept. This challenge is also taken personally by Catholics.

They sure do.... by the same token, Catholics have the right to defend and promote the validity of the Divine Trinity.... this challenge is also taken personally by some non-Catholics.

While I may disagree with you at times, this is the way it is done and I am glad to be a member of this fellowship.

Now that is more "Christian" than about anything I've read on this thread.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Sorry, Victor... I know you addressed this one to Dan, but I simply couldn't resist responding. I'm surprised you would ask a Mormon if he believes that God restricted Himself to only 66 books. Think again before you make that assumption! Add all the books of the Apocrypha to the Bibles non-Christians use, and you don't even come close to what my Church sees as scripture.

Kathryn

Kathryn, how am was I supposed to know he was Mormon? It doesn't matter the statement stands.

~Victor

[dan]

Originally Posted by Victor

Apparently you think God restricted himself to only 66 books, that correct?

~Victor

I figured her answer sufficed, but apparently not. No I don't think God restricted himself to 66 books.