Muscular Christian

I fully agree. Nicaea has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof, i.e. the power of deification (godlikeness). Nicaea was correct that Jesus is God's species and not a different kind of being. But the implication in the creed that humans are NOT also God's species was DEMONIC. As we know, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. But Jesus is the firstbegotten Son of God in spirit. Pre-Nicene Christians understood this distinction. Post-Nicene Christians did not understand this. Origen explained that "in the beginning the LOGOS was" just existing (John 1.1) refers to all human minds (logikoi, intelligences, Com on John 2.8; 2.3) as the term Logos means Reason and "reason lights up every human coming into the world" (John 1.9). Paul agrees with Stoic pantheists that human reason is an offshoot or fragment of God Himself (Acts 17.18,28-29). Pre-Nicene Christians taught that Jesus is THE FIRSTBEGOTTEN SON OF GOD as He is the first spirit child of God the Father and Jesus is our BROTHER. But Nicaea reintepreted this tradition as referring to Jesus only being our brother in the flesh and thus they removed a key of knowledge that "we are the species of God" (Acts 17.29) precisely as our Older Brother Jesus is God's species.

Here's a detailed breakdown of what is true and false in the Nicene Creed. Originally Christians applied "only begotten Son of God" to GOD'S INCARNATION in the flesh (John 1.14; 3.16-18; Luke 1.32,35; John 19.7; Matt 26.63-69; Gal 4.4; Heb 5.5; 1.5). But the Nicene Creed 325 and especially the Constantinopilan Creed of 381 misapplied the phrase "Only Begotten Son of God" as referring to CHRIST'S PRE-INCARNATE DIVINE NATIRE eternal generation of the Son before the ages. So originally "only begotten of the Father" referred to when "the Logos was MADE FLESH" (John 1.14). But Nicenes began applying "only begotten of the Father" to the pre-incarnate nature when "the Logos just was" (John 1.1).

You don't understand what Nicaea meant to the Bishops who signed it. Originally 'homoousios' just meant 'generic substance' like two humans are 'homoousios' because they share a generic human substance. This is how the Cappadocians understood it and how most Eastern Orthodox still understand it. The Greek Oethodox preferred analogy for the Trinity remains that Father, Son and Holy Ghost share one divine nature just like Peter, James and John share one human nature. The Father is the Origin and Cause of the existence and divinity of the Son and Spirit. But the Latin West followed Augustine who misinterpreted the Nicene Creed to backread "One Being in Three Persons" into the Creed. When Cappadocians said, "One ousia but three hypostasis", this meant one substance and three persons. NOT one being. The original text of the creed did NOT anathematize those who said "the Son is CREATED". This language isn't found in any of the original versions of the creed and the Eastern Bishops wouldn't have signed it if it had said that. It appears this language was retroactively added to the creed some time after 381 AD when Theodosius outlawed Arianism and confiscated Arian Churches (see JND Kelly, Early Chriatian Creeds). Eusebius of Caesarea was semi-Arian and he wrote his flock and said that the anathema against those who say "the Son did not exist before He was begotten", only means that the Son existed before He was begotten IN THE FLESH.

How can Christ's resurrected body go to a non-physical place? What's the point of having a body if you just disappear to a place without bodies? Make sense out of it to me. It sounds like you are denying the resurrection or at least calling bodies a less spiritual and less divine state. Why does God resurrect us st all if God and the Angels have no bodies in heaven?

Actually, LDS scripture says that Michael or Adam the first Man is the Ancient of Days. I'd say that is relevant to what Brigham Young taught since he said he got his doctrine from Joseph, and that Joseph taught it in his published revelations. Low and behold, Joseph Smith taught the Ancient of Days is Adam and never denied that the Ancient of Days is God the Father just like all Jews and Christians have taught for the last 2500 years. Early LDS Hymns say, "Sons of Michael He approaches, rise the Eternal Father greet". The term 'Eternal Father' was later changed to 'Ancient Father'. Don't get me started on temple changes. But if you doubt the Temple said it, Google Adam-God and temple ceremony. But my approach is that Mormons STILL preach that God the Father is "thr First Man of all men" "the Man of holiness" (Moses 1.34; 6.57).

To be fair, men like Athansius invented the Trinity to defend the Deity of Christ, a thing Mormons agree with. The only problem is their solution for how there is only one God, but Christ also possesses Deity, was absurd. Certainly the idea that God cannot be born as a man and the idea that God is essentially incporeal and impossible were derived from Greek philosophers like Plato, Athenagoras, Philo, and Aristotle. But the fear of tritheism did not stem from Greek philosophy but rather fear of pagan accusations of polytheism and creature worship. But the Trinity and Chalcedon (paraodox, mystery, logical contradiction) don't absolve Christianity of either charge.

I can answer all that. Let's begin with Phil 2.6, "form of God". "He who exalts himself shall be humbled [Satan, Isa 14.12], and he who humbles himself shall be exalted [Matt 23.12]" (Matthew 23.12). That verse Phil 2.6 says Jesus before His incarnation "did NOT think equality with God something to be grasped". Clearly the morphe of God implies the possibility of equality but without its actuality. How could Jesus think it wrong to attempt to grasp equality with God like Satan did except originally he wasn't equal to God? But if Jesus had the shape of God (eidos theos), and Jesus always had the shape of a Man in OT theophany, clearly all human spirits also have the shape of God. Ergo, all spirits formed in God's Image were tempted to grasp equality with God like we see Satan falsely tempted Adam (humanity) with. "Jesus humbled Himself to death on thr cross, WHEREFORE God has also highly exalted Him and given Him a Name above all names (the Name Yahweh)" (Phil 2.9-11), "You loved righteousness and hated iniquity, THERFORE your God anointed you above your fellows" (Hebrews 1.9; 1.2; 2.10-17). The word "therefore" peoves that Jesus' exaltation was dependent on His choosing "to always do the things that please Him" (John 8.29). This means gaining a body was a thing that pleased God and dying on the cross for man's sins as "it pleased Him that His soul should be an offering for sin" (Isaiah 53.11). If Jesus only became equal to God in the fullest sense AFTER the incarnation, that implies God the Father was already incarnate and that incarnation was necessary for Jesus' rise to equality. "Yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered becoming the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him" (Hebrews 5.8-9). Phil 2.6 "form of God" suggests that Jesus had the physical shape (eidos) of God but also suggests he looked like God in glory. It's interesting that Moses' face shone like God's face so that no one could look at Moses' face like no one could look at God's face (Exodus 34.29-34; 33.20). Jesus' face also shone like God's face (Matt 17.3,5). So both Jesus and Moses manifest "the form of God". So Paul compares Moses' face shining to Christ's face shining even greater (2 Cor 3.7,18) which manifests "the image of God" (2 Cor 4.4,6; 1 Cor 11.7). So if we put it all together we realize that God in Genesis 1.26 said, "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE" (Genesis 1.26), but the meaning wasn't completely known until the Incarnation when the Son was destined to complete Mankind in His own Incarnation and Resurrection in His own image and likeness by raising man from the dead. In other words, we rise from the dead in Christ's image (1 Cor 15.45-49; Rom 8.29), which is God's Image since God Himself said, "Let Us make man in OUR IMAGE" (Gen 1.26). Therefore, our bodies are the Image of both the Father and the Son. It is only with Resurrected Bodies that we can become equal to God like Jesus did in Phil 2.9-11 & God promised we would be HIS LIKENESS in the Resurrection in Gen 1.26 & 3.22 & 1 Cor 13.12 & 1 John 3.2 & 2 Cor 3.18 w/ Phil 3.21 & John 17.22,24.

You didn't refute my overall argument. If the Son forever has a body and the Father is forever bodiless, they must be two eternally dissimilar substances and cannot be "homoousios". This argument stands on its own. If you want to say that that implies the Father also went from a state of being spirit to gaining a body, so that the Son was homoousios with God both as Spirit AND as a Body, I agree! The implication is that the Son becomes like the Father by going through the same process of Incarnarion. Hence God made humans in His own likeness, meaning the same process or creation. This is the implication of God forever creating new forms of being, not just creating spirit beings in the Beginning but also creating physical beings in the End. So we see that God and Jesus are both the Beginning and the End. Spirit from eternity and Body to eternity. "My Father works hitherto and I work. The Son can do nothing of Himself EXCEPT WHAT HE SEES THE FATHER DO. For WHATEVER HE DOES SO DOES THE SON IN LIKE MANNER. For the Father loves the Son and SHOWS HIM ALL THAT HIMSELF DOES. And He will show Him greater works than these thst you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. FOR AS THE FATHER HAS LIFE IN HISMELF, EVEN SO HAS HE GIVEN TO THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF" (John 5.17-26; 6.57; 10.15-18; 15.10). So in dying and rising again, the Son was only imitating what He saw His Father do. The Father created older heavens and older earths through the same process the Son was now creating new heavens and new earth. "My Father creates hitherto and I create" (John 5.17; 1.3,10; Heb 1.3; 11.3). So God rested from His works even as His Son rested from His works when He said It is Finished (Heb 4.3-10; John 14.12). We are promised we too can enter into the Rest of God if we have faith in Joshua (Jesus) who was our forerunner into the Promised Land and went to prepare worlds for us (John 14.2-3; Matt 25.34; Luke 22.29; Heb 1.2,6 with Rom 8.17,32 & Rev 3.9,12,21).

I can't show you heaven but john and Stephen can.. John "looked through a door into heaven. I saw Him who sits upon the Throne. And I saw a Lamb standing and He came and took the Book out of the Right Hand of Him who sits upon the Throne" (Revelation 4.2; 5.1,6-7; 3.21; same Acts 7.55-56). "I saw Yahweh sitting on His Throne with all the armes of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left hand" (1 Kings 22.19-22; Rev 3.21; 5.1,6-7; Ezekiel 1.26-28). You still haven't answered how Jesus' resurrected body could ascend to a non physical place. Why have a body at all if you're gonna just disappear to a "place" without bodies? Moses patterned the early temple based on the heavenly Temple (Exod 25.22) and John saw that the heavenly Temple looks just like the earthly Temple (Revelation 15.5-8). "In heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt 18.10). Many people believe heaven is a physical place not just Mormons.

When people say Brigham Young taught Adam was God, therr is no better place to find Brigham Young's teachings than JoD. That was the subject. Did I misquote Brigham Young? I did not. I just showed how BY didn't think there's much of a difference between Adam-God (Adam is God) and TWO-ADAM theory (God beget Adam). I agree with Brigham because in either case Primal Man or thr First Man remains God Himself who is 'the First Man of all men' or 'Man of holiness' (Moses 1.34; 6.57). Is this true or not?