DiscussMormonism.com

SteelHead wrote:The creed is an example of argumentum ad populum. It is a comttee deciding upon interpretation of the Bible. An othdoxy yard stick 300 years after Jesus. I've yet to see his stamp on it.... Is it "bonafide"?

Maybe you don't see it because you don't have the "seal." Eph. 1:13

Servant wrote:They don't need to appear in the Bible. Mormons do not hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God.

They affirm the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and Christ's mission on earth, and His coming again - all of which can be confirmed by the Bible. They don't "appear" in the Bible, obviously. They summarize the teachings found there.

You keep saying that, but you have not shown me where the Bible talks about the trinity the way the creeds do, or where anything found in the creeds is in the Bible.

Servant wrote:They affirm the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and Christ's mission on earth, and His coming again - all of which can be confirmed by the Bible. They don't "appear" in the Bible, obviously. They summarize the teachings found there.

Oddly enough, Mormons say that their teachings are confirmed by the Bible.

Why did the Bible need to be summarized somewhere else?

Megacles wrote:You keep saying that, but you have not shown me where the Bible talks about the trinity the way the creeds do, or where anything found in the creeds is in the Bible.

From what I can see, the Trinity was developed as a way to reconcile apparent contradictions in the Bible about the nature of God and how Jesus fits into the picture. It works well enough, but it's clearly not a "summary" of the Bible, and there's nothing in the Bible that screams Trinity.

Fence Sitter wrote:Why did the Bible need to be summarized somewhere else?

If the Bible contains all we need to know about God and the gospel, it doesn't need to be summarized anywhere.

No offense, but all this silliness about whose God is the Biblical one is about as interesting (and consequential) as arguing whether Ryker or Spock was a better first officer. Hell, it's even less so than that. At least Star Trek is entertaining.

Runtu wrote:No offense, but all this silliness about whose God is the Biblical one is about as interesting (and consequential) as arguing whether Ryker or Spock was a better first officer. Hell, it's even less so than that. At least Star Trek is entertaining.

Well, sorry you feel like that.

Runtu wrote:

Fence Sitter wrote:Why did the Bible need to be summarized somewhere else?

If the Bible contains all we need to know about God and the gospel, it doesn't need to be summarized anywhere.

The creeds were recited in Church, and still are, to summarize the basic beliefs of Christianity. Why are you so worked up about creeds? Doesn't the Mormon church have creeds? It sure does.

This is longer than the Nicene Creed: http://www.Bible.ca/cr-Mormons.htm#lds

Furthermore, Lectures on Faith, which was removed from the Mormon "standard works" when the doctrines changed, were longer than both!

Interesting that within 300 years folks couldn't agree on christology to the point where a council was called to hammer things out. Guy was barely dead and gone and yet they couldn't keep the details straight.

Almost as if the whole religion was created ad hoc.....

And yet, where is the guarantee from Jesus that the council at Nicaea actually represented him and his teachings?

No where......... That's where.

Paul hijacked the movement then Constantine made it his tool.

Ah religion.