BlipBlap

Except the Hebrews didn't believe that God created the world out of nothing. The best example you have of that supposedly being mainstream Hebrew thought is a single verse in 2 Maccabees (7:28), which is believed to have been written around 150-100 BC. That is hardly "ancient and modern orthodox Judaism" as the book is not part of Jewish canon. You can look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1 that is translated as "created" in English is "bara", which is not contextually used to mean "creation from nothing". You can also look at the Greek of 2 Peter 3:5 and see direct support for "creatio ex materia". Some might interpret the English "earth" as only meaning "dry land", but that wouldn't work given the context of the preceding verses. We could potentially take it even further and explore the idea that "creatio ex nihilo" implies that God himself is nothing. God creating all things would mean that all things are the product of the mind of God. If God (and therefore his mind) is eternal and he created all things, that would mean that his mind would be the pre-existing material by which all things were given form. As for "God not being a man", that is also difficult to substantiate given that God created man in his image. "God the Son" becoming a man likewise contradicts the notion that God is unchanging (in the terms of how Nicaeans present the term "unchanging"), uncreated, etc., as God upon becoming incarnate in flesh would be undergoing an objective change. This would directly mean that "God the Son" is created, as God the Son's existence is predicated upon incarnation in flesh and since you deny that God the Father has a physical body, that means that the body was created at a later time. It then runs into LDS theology of God the Father having a physical body. Your theology denies this, yet contradicts itself in the very idea of "God the Son" being "God incarnated in flesh". Either you acknowledge that God the Father always had a physical body, or that the idea of consubstantiality doesn't work due to attributing different natures to one aspect of the Nicene God and not the other. There are other issues as well. If "God the Son" is "God becoming man", you would at minimum be agreeing to the idea of God being an "exalted man" upon Jesus' Transfiguration. The hypostatic union suggests this too.

So there seems to be a running theme with these posts: The user starts off with "Here's another gospel "truth" once taught by the LDS Church." or similar. The user then proceeds to post content that, while coming from some people in authority, fails to provide evidence of it being an accepted teaching of the church. It's the run-of-the-mill conflation of individual statements with doctrine. This begs the question: Has this user read D&C 107:27-32? It doesn't seem to be the case, as at no point are we told to take all of what any member says as "truth", regardless of their position.

There's the Scriptural Mormonism channel by Robert Boylan. He recently did a video regarding the "God Loves Mormons" channel:

It probably doesn't help that the Russian Orthodox church is essentially an arm of the government.

There's also Romans 8:16-17. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together

The argument isn't that "Greek thought is wrong", but the Nicaean conception of God requires one to go to schools of thought that are (more or less) outside the source material. Neither the Old or New Testament explicitly describe God in the manner in which he is described in the Nicene Creed, with many verses being valid arguments against this conception. Combine this with the notion that "the church" (i.e. Christendom) requires a monotheistic theology, and you end up with a problem. How do we maintain monotheism while also dealing with three distinctions, The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit? The Hebrews certainly didn't conceive God in the same way, there is very little Jesus himself said (based on the Gospels) that supports the idea, and the idea conflicts with other points of theology found in those churches as well as points presented within the Nicene Creed itself.

Considering that the Nicaean conception of the Trinity essentially agrees that God is an exalted man and that nothing in the Bible precludes that idea...

Not at all surprising given that we're a religion stemming from the US.

"Really liked" doing quite a bit of heavy lifting, especially since marrying teenage girls was hardly out of place for most of history. We can go back to the 12th century with the Decretum Gratiani and see that, for much of history, the onset of puberty was considered to be the common definition of what it was to be an "adult" in terms of marriage viability. 18 being the starting point is more of a late 19th century thing. This isn't the first time someone has tried to use presentism when criticizing both the LDS church and other branches of Christianity, and it's still just as illogical.

It's pretty clear. You seem to not engage with any responses to any topics you start, and this poster is asking if you ever intend to.