You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness.
Stuff it thews.
Did I mention that some Anabaptists were polygamists?
Ouch baby. If you actually believe I give a rat's ass what you think about anything, think again. You may want to replace your "stuff it" comment with something intelligent enough to answer. I get that you have Liz's back... she needs you.You can start here thews:
While you are beating your chest about Trinitarianism and Mormons not being Christians, you are ignoring a whole load of Christian history. Christianity never was a unitary movement so give up on it. There’s never been one sole, solitary person who got to decide who is Christian and who isn’t. Although a good war could sometimes settle it.
Some people were heretics and some weren’t, but if you proclaimed ”belief in Jesus,” whatever that meant, you were a Christian. You might be a heretic, but you were a Christian.
Were historical Jesus and historical Judas on the same page? Were the Ebionites down with Paul? The principal way that Peter and Paul got along with each other is that they almost never had to see each other. Which ones were Christians and which ones weren’t? Support your answer. Then you can tell me whether Montanists and Manacheans were Christians.
Is it consistent that you could be a non-Trinitarian Christian before Nicaea but not after? Arians sacked Rome but they weren’t Christians, right?
Thought your priest should be personally worthy before your baptism would be effective? You’d make a fine Donatist, the first Protestants before there were even Protestants. If Christianity has never been unified, who has the power, and on what basis are you going to decide who is and who is not a Christian. With the use of a sharp sword, you might make some headway on who is a heretic, but by definition, a heretic is a Christian.
Then you have a whole lot of Gnostics who weren’t even sure that Jesus was really “man.” Then you’ve got Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars and Albigensians. May they rest in peace.
You can then go down the list of Christological heresies but when the clergy went home east from Nicaea, they preached a Trinitarianism that still looked a whole lot more like homoiousian than homoousian. And the only thing that saved the not so far Easterners for centuries is they could always claim that it was just tough to get Greek to align with Latin.
What did the “Christians” in Persia think? Is “essence” the same as “substance?” Can you cram a non-Chalcedonian Christ in to the Western understanding of the Creed? Nestor couldn’t.
What did the 6th century Christians in western China think? How do you say homoiousian in Mandarin? As far as we know, they didn’t have the Creed. They we too busy thinking about how one could be attached to Christ without being attached.
You can stick a Filioque in there too.
Where’s Waldo? Another Protestant before there were Protestants, he’s off being influenced by the Cathars and Albigensians. Does it matter? Well Waldensians deeply influenced Jan Hus, who met the fiery stake in the era of the 3 competing Popes. Hus deeply influenced the Anabaptists. Some Anabaptists claim a chain of ordination all the way back to the Waldensians. Anabaptists were the first in Europe (the world?) to argue for the separation of church and state, long, long before the French Enlightenment. And ignore the fact that you couldn’t get most of their Christology into the Creed with a giant shoe horn. Oh, they thought the only believers should be baptized, pretty much the biggest religious idea in the good old US of A and an idea the Donatists would be comfortable with. But are Anabaptists Christians?
Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Christian) where the Bible is silent, we are silent. Guess they are not Christian they couldn’t care less about the Creed.
Oneness Pentecostals, check
Christian Scientists, check
John Locke, check
Issac Newton, check
Benjamin Franklin, check
Thomas Jefferson, check
Apart from a few generals, who has ever had the power to declare who is, or is not, Christian?
Christianity has always been a vast movement with some connection to Jesus, who may, or may not have existed in any meaningful way in connection with Christianity.
So when you say that Mormons are not Trinitarians, what is your point? The statement is tautological.
When you say Mormons aren’t Christians, you don’t understand Christian history. It makes no more sense than saying that Peter, James and John were Mormons.
lulu - heretically