blink182:

well well well

Illiteracy and religion is like a keg of gun powder. Absolute power corrupts. I'm an RCCG member, but first and foremost, I realise my relationship with God is through Jesus Christ not E.A Adeboye. I have so many friends who have never realised that.

If we are to be honest, we would realise that the moment anyone says something wrong about E.A Adeboye or Oyedepo, there is a backlash against the 'pagan' especially on social networking sites.

A MAN of God is still and always will be a man-- prone to errors. It's like going to a wedding to see the best man instead of the bridegroom.

Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds

This verse clearly shows one has to be careful to know the Scriptures like the people of Berea did, whom Paul acknowledged. If anything your pastor says contradicts the Word, it ain't the Word. It's that simple

I would also like to refer to Martin Luther King's post. quotations
"Any religion that preaches about the souls of men but fails to talk about the poverty that impoverishes them;The hunger that strikes them or the slum that damns them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial' - Martin Luther King

Think 2ce

musKeeto:

Illiteracy and religion is like a keg of gun powder. Absolute power corrupts. I'm an RCCG member, but first and foremost, I realise my relationship with God is through Jesus Christ not E.A Adeboye. I have so many friends who have never realised that.

If we are to be honest, we would realise that the moment anyone says something wrong about E.A Adeboye or Oyedepo, there is a backlash against the 'pagan' especially on social networking sites.

A MAN of God is still and always will be a man-- prone to errors. It's like going to a wedding to see the best man instead of the bridegroom.

Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds

This verse clearly shows one has to be careful to know the Scriptures like the people of Berea did, whom Paul acknowledged. If anything your pastor says contradicts the Word, it ain't the Word. It's that simple

I would also like to refer to Martin Luther King's post. quotations
"Any religion that preaches about the souls of men but fails to talk about the poverty that impoverishes them;The hunger that strikes them or the slum that damns them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial' - Martin Luther King

In all these, I would still want to know ,what makes any o these points a matter of Idolatory. Let's define idolatry from the word and analyse it properly . Not just general statement. Is it idolatry to listen or submit to a man of God? . Is it idolatry to be corrected, rebuked by a man of God. Is it idolatry to recieve instruction by a man of God? . It is dsngerous to make general statements without definite clarity .

musKeeto:

If we are to be honest, we would realise that the moment anyone says something wrong about E.A Adeboye or Oyedepo, there is a backlash against the 'pagan' especially on social networking sites.

Joagbaje:

In all these, I would still want to know ,what makes any o these points a matter of Idolatory. Let's define idolatry from the word and analyse it properly . Not just general statement. Is it idolatry to listen or submit to a man of God? . Is it idolatry to be corrected, rebuked by a man of God. Is it idolatry to recieve instruction by a man of God? . It is dsngerous to make general statements without definite clarity .

Good morning to you, Joagbaje

For example it is idolatry if one keeps quiet at something offensive about their God but immediately their pastor is slandered, they start insulting the offender.

It is wrong to send to rail insults on anybody for whatever reason. Either on behalf of a pastor or God .

Joagbaje it is wrong to even insult anyone no matter if they are a man of God or not. What I'm saying is that some people hold God's own "Men of God" that they can see in higher esteem than the God they cannot see.

Exodus 32:1-3 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him."

Exo 24:17  And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

Exo 34:35  And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

2Co 3:15  Yes, down to this [very] day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their minds and hearts.
2Co 3:16  But whenever a person turns [in repentance] to the Lord, the veil is stripped off and taken away.

@joagbaje
So how come your cec band of hooligans are always up in arms and raining insults on anybody that dares to say the truth about Oyakhilome?

Firstly the accusation against pastor Chris are false. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Those who rail insults did so at their own discretion. It's not what pastor chris teaches. Besides some are from other churches and not CEC.

we have one big problem in nigeria called Christianity and Muslim. i can't that day my people will wakeup and realize that religion is the cause of our problen.

Dulcet7:

Joagbaje, What I'm saying is that some people hold God's own "Men of God" that they can see in higher esteem than the God they cannot see.

God never said anyone should fight for him. He commanded we should preach the gospel. A man who insults God lack truth. And it's the gospel that we need to preach to make known his knowledge . God us not glorified in railing insults on others for him. The gospel is communicated by love Not JIHAD.

But if someone defends his pastor. It's a natural loyalty thing. If someone insult God ,you may not respond to his folly. But if he insults your mother, there may be a reaction. It's an issue of loyalty.I'm not justifying it. But it's not idolatry . The disciples carried sword to fight for Jesus. It's a natural fleshly response .Especially when you know the accusations are unfounded.

Joagbaje:

God never said anyone should fight for him. He commanded we should preach the gospel. A man who insults God lack truth. And it's the gospel that we need to preach to make known his knowledge . God us not glorified in railing insults on others for him. The gospel is communicated by love Not JIHAD.

But if someone defends his pastor. It's a natural loyalty thing. If someone insult God ,you may not respond to his folly. But if he insults your mother, there may be a reaction. It's an issue of loyalty.I'm not justifying it. But it's not idolatry . The disciples carried sword to fight for Jesus. It's a natural fleshly response .Especially when you know the accusations are unfounded.

Sorry I don't relate with this. I see insults on myself, a family member, friend, boss or God the same way; most often not worthy of a response.

I don't relate with it either. I said earlier, it's fleshly, and its not justify.  my point is that it's a natural human tendency. Take jesus case for instance. Peter sliced somebody with a sword For his spiritual head. It was clear Jesus was against what Peter did.

In another instance, James and John felt Jesus was insulted by the Samaritans and they wanted to call fire to burn them.In defence of Jesus.

John 49:53
But [the people] would not welcome or receive or accept Him, because His face was [set as if He was] going to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John observed this, they said, Lord, do You wish us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, a even as Elijah did ? 

It's an issue of loyalty to who has affected your life one way or the other. Its not the same for someone who hasnt touched any life. Some mothers get beaten up by their children because theve been terrible mothers to them. But another  beat up others in defence of their mum.

What will be wrong is if a pastor engineers people to attack others because of personal insults meted on him. He will be acting in the flesh that way.

^^^ It is idolatry to esteem someone like Oyakhilome above the apostle James.

It is idolatry to be ready to disrespect someone like James but to see nothing whatsoever wrong or questionable in the teaching and/or practise of Oyakhilome.

And as has been pointed out it is idolatry to get up in arms when someone "insults" Oyakhilome whereas you don't do the same when God, be it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, is maligned.


It gets worse (remember last time I used that phrase? )

It is idolatry to esteem Oyakhilome above Jesus Christ ---- maybe without even realising that this is what you are doing; nonetheless you have done this many times.

On this Board/Forum, the worst idolaters in terms of worshipping their head honchos are the members of Chris Embassy; others who make idols of their head honchos here are still far behind you CEC people.

@Enigma

^^^ It is idolatry to esteem someone like Oyakhilome above the apostle James.

There is no comparison of person. I didn't make statement like that. We judge doctrine and not a person. James wasn't perfect. He made obvious doctrinal errors which paul corrected.  That doesn't mean we looked own on them. 
James was just a man like anyone else. I think it is idolatry to feel we are lesser than them . It simple biblical discussion we are having. and it's scriptural to judge doctrine and not a person. 

It is idolatry to be ready to disrespect someone like James but to see nothing whatsoever wrong or questionable in the teaching and/or practise of Oyakhilome.

It is not disrespect to compare a man's teaching with body of truth. It's a welcome idea. 

And as has been pointed out it is idolatry to get up in arms when someone "insults" Oyakhilome whereas you don't do the same when God, be it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, is maligned.

the person that will insult God definitely is nit born again .he cannot be won by argument and fights . it's a waste of time. If someone ask a honest question about God . I respond like anyone else.

But it's a different thing when someone who is supposed to be a christian begins to peddle falsehood about other christian and ministers. I would try clarify their ignorance in the area I have information. And I will let them see by scriptures how erroneous his umbliiCal action is. this is not about pastor chris. But every minister and every christian. Even if anything went wrong . It is wrong for the church to wash it's dirty linen in public. In the eyes if sinners. Who we ought to be preaching to. 

The bible condemned having our matters tabled before unbelievers. There are bible ways to handle issues in the body of christ . I advocate we follow Jesus.

@Joagbaje
There are several doctrines/ practises of oyakhilome which are glaringly wrong and obvious even to unbelievers which you would rather choose to ignore or even in most cases endorse just becos it was preached or practised by Oyaks. You find no wrong in what the scammer preaches even when it is obvious that the guy is a fraud, would that not be an act of Idolatory?

Joagbaje:

We judge doctrine and not a person. James wasn't perfect. He made obvious doctrinal errors which paul corrected.  That doesn't mean we looked own on them. 
James was just a man like anyone else. I think it is idolatry to feel we are lesser than them . It simple biblical discussion we are having. and it's scriptural to judge doctrine and not a person. 

Since you are judging doctrines and not people, what about this one? Please answer honestly, what is the Biblical basis for this below?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-630393.0.html#msg7975502

Theotempo: Christianity without the annointing is religion! Pst Chris!

KunleOshob:

@Joagbaje
There are several doctrines/ practises of oyakhilome which are glaringly wrong and obvious even to unbelievers which you would rather choose to ignore or even in most cases endorse just becos it was preached or practised by Oyaks. You find no wrong in what the scammer preaches even when it is obvious that the guy is a fraud, would that not be an act of Idolatory?

I would you rather bring up the issues . Certain issues raised here were mostly twisted and misquoted. And it comes in abuses whereby giving  no room for discussion

@joagbaje
70% of the threads started by you on this forum are dedicated to Oyaks despite the fact that his theology is very shallow and twisted, is that not idolatory

I gave my reasons. Many things have been said about his teachings which are not true. They created an idea of what they claim he represents in his teaching. I began to post some of his teachings for people to know what he really teaches. And many were surprised at some of the teachings because others have given them a wrong Idea of his teachings

Joagbaje:

@Enigma

There is no comparison of person. I didn't make statement like that. We judge doctrine and not a person. J[b]ames wasn't perfect. He made obvious doctrinal errors [/b]which paul corrected.[/b]

Could you please identify the "doctrinal errors" that James made and where Paul "corrected" them?
 

Joagbaje:

James was just a man like anyone else. I think it is idolatry to feel we are lesser than them . It simple biblical discussion we are having. and it's scriptural to judge doctrine and not a person. 

It is not disrespect to compare a man's teaching with body of truth. It's a welcome idea. . . .

Do you expect sensible people to compare James who was with Jesus and learned first hand from Jesus with a person like Oyakhilome? I put it to you again that only idolaters of Oyakhilome would think of holding Oyakhilome in higher regard than the apostle James.

Sensible people would bear in mind that, assuming for one moment that he is a genuine Christian, Oyakhilome is using a Bible of which his understanding of some parts is grossly limited by the fact alone that he is 2000 years removed from its origin; sensible people will realise that a person like James who lived through the very era of the gospel daily and saw and was part of Jesus' ministry is not the kind of person that a person like Oyakhilome should be compared to.

@stilldude.i really appreciated frosbel's way of stating his point,he provided versesto which i responded.you have provided nothing except a lame point of "he is the son of God so he is God".so in your view the son of a farmer can and will always be a farmer,the son of a doctor will always be a doctor etc.i donot in anyway doubt that jesus is the son of God,my point is that his been God's son doesnt automatically make him god.even he himself said "if thou ask anything of the father,through his son"that tell you he acknowledges he is inferior to the father.when the dove appeared after his baptism,a voice said from heaven "he is my beloved son in whom i am well pleased" simply put there was God in heaven who was pleased at Jesus(the son) who was sent to earth for the redemption of man.not once did jesus himself ever call himself God.he even ateested to the fact that he can do nothing except God give him permission.this jesus=God philosophy came as a result of the council of nicea from which i copied the following

Council of Nicea and The Da Vinci Code
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Above: Icon of Constantine and the
Council of Nicea displaying the Creed.The Council of Nicea (325 AD) was an important meeting of about 300 bishops from across the Roman Empire who met to discuss theological and administrative issues. The Da Vinci Code makes dramatic claims about what happened at this council, most of which are historically inaccurate.

The Council of Nicea in The Da Vinci Code and Reality
In Chapter 55, Sir Leigh Teabing explains to Sophie Neveu how the early Church consolidated its power by destroying the sacred feminine and making the mortal prophet Jesus into a divine being. But despite his revered status as "Royal Historian," Teabing doesn't know his history all that well.

In The Da Vinci Code
"Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicea, "
"At this gathering, many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon - the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."
"My dear, until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet, a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal."
"Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea, a relatively close vote at that."
"Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base, "
Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned.
In Reality
True: Constantine did preside over the first ecumenical gathering of the church, which is known as the Council of Nicea (325 AD). He did so in order to ensure unity in the Church, but not to strengthen any "new" Christian tradition.
True: Many aspects were debated and voted upon, including the date of Easter and administrative issues such as those listed.The bishops did debate and vote on the divinity of Jesus, but not whether he was divine. They were there to debate the type of divinity that Jesus was.
False: From the New Testament authors until "that moment in history," nearly every Christian believed that Jesus was divine. He was worshipped and spoken of as "the Son of God" and "God."
False: Jesus as "Son of God" was already long established. The idea that he was divine was neither proposed nor voted on by the Council of Nicea. The debate and vote concerned whether Jesus was divine in the same sense as God the Father, or if he was a lesser deity created by the Father. The vote was not "relatively close" - there were only two dissenters.
False: It is highly unlikely that "establishing Christ's divinity" would be necessary to unify the Roman Empire or give power to the Church (which was not called "the Vatican" back then). Consider the example of Islam, which unified empires and gave great power to religious authorities - its founder was a mortal prophet.
False. While it is true that the development of the Bible was a historical process that took centuries, Constantine had nothing to do with it and the Council of Nicea did not discuss it.



Documents and Evidence on the Council of Nicea
As the Council of Nicea was of such importance to the early church, we fortunately have quite a bit of information about it in ancient documents, including the text of later councils and several Christian letters and treatises.

The Nicene Creed
Like many people, Sophie Neveu only knows of the Council of Nicea because of the famous Nicene Creed, the statement of faith issued by the Council of Nicea. It reflects its decision (by overwhelming majority) that Jesus was divine in the same sense as God the Father, and not in the sense of a created divine being.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homousion) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.

And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
The second part, which condemns certain views as heretical, makes it clear that the question was not whether Jesus was divine, but in what way he was divine. The "heretical" view, taught by Arius and his followers, was not that Jesus was just a mortal prophet but that he was inferior to God the Father and created by the Father.

This creed is documented in several contemporary sources, including the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Acts of Chalcedon, in the Epistle of Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own Church, in the the Ecclesiastical Histories of Theodoret and Socrates, and elsewhere.

The Canons of Nicea
In addition to the creed, the bishops at the Council of Nicea issued 20 canons, or determinations, after the conclusion of the council. Most of them are fairly mundane and deal with administrative matters. The text of each canon is online here.

Ancient Accounts of the Council of Nicea
Several church historians who lived during or shortly after the Council of Nicea documented the events of the council. In addition, writers such as Athanasius (the main defender of Nicene orthodoxy) referred to it in their letters. Following are links to English translations of these ancient sources on Nicea.

Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.4-23 (eyewitness account of a bishop at the council)
Athanasius, Letter to Bishops of Africa (eyewitness account)
Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition (eyewitness, mainly on theology)
Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.7 (early 400s AD)
Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.7-9 (early 400s AD)
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15-17 (early 400s AD)
Comments by Experts and Authors on the Council of Nicea
Bart Ehrman, a scholar of early Christianity, writes in Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code:

Scholars who study the history of Christian theology will find it bizarre, at best, to hear Teabing claim that Christians before the Council of Nicea did not consider Jesus to be divine.

Our earliest surviving Christian author in the apostle Paul, Paul was producing his letter about 20 or 30 years after Jesus' death (250 years before the Council of Nicea) and in them it becomes abundantly clear that Paul understands that Jesus was in some sense divine,

Constantine, wanting unity in the church because he wanted unity in his empire, called a council to decide the issue raised most poignantly by Arius, whether christ was a divine creation of the Father or was himself co-eternal and equal with God.

The Council of Nicea met in 325 CE to decide the issue. Contrary to what Leigh Teabing asserts, it was not a particularly close "vote." The vast majority of the 200 or 250 bishops present sided with the view of Athanasius against Arius, which was eventually to become the view of Christianity at large, And more imporant, contrary to Teabing, it was not a vote on Jesus' divinity. Christians for 250 years had agreed Jesus was divine. The only question was how he was divine, and that was what the Council of Nicea was called to resolve.

As we have seen, Leigh Teabing was right to insist that 'the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.' , Teabing is wrong to think, however, that Constantine had anything to do with the matter, The formation of the canon started centuries before Constantine, and the establishment of the four-fold Gospel canon of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was virtually in place 150 years before his day.

On the other hand, it is equally striking that even during Constantine's day the matter was not brough to final resolution - not by him and not by the Council of Nicea, which he called (and which in fact did not deal with the matter of canon). (Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, pp. 15-16, 23, 93)
Michael Haag and Veronica Haag (non-experts) note in their Rough Guide to the Da Vinci Code:

The divine nature of Christ was argued from both the Arian and Athanasian points of view, and when the bishops voted on the issue, it was decided in favour of Athanasius by 218 votes to two - not the "relatively close vote" claimed in The Da Vinci Code. (p. 85)
Writing for Christianity Today magazine, Collin Hansen remarks:

Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.

In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."

In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. ("Breaking the Da Vinci Code"

if you still need more info,google is efficient.

Joagbaje:


God never said anyone should fight for him. He commanded we should preach the gospel. A man who insults God lack truth.

And it's the gospel that we need to preach to make known his knowledge . God us not glorified in railing insults on others for him.

The gospel is communicated by love Not JIHAD.

But if someone defends his pastor. It's a natural loyalty thing. If someone insult God, you may not respond to his folly.

But if he insults your mother, there may be a reaction. It's an issue of loyalty. I'm not justifying it. But it's not idolatry .

The disciples carried sword to fight for Jesus. It's a natural fleshly response .

Especially when you know the accusations are unfounded.

@Joagbaje

So "Where is your sword then?"

SMH I dont see the connection or relevance of your reference to "disciples carrying swords to fight for Jesus" in this matter . . .

so will let it roll as another PROOF TEXT FALLACY

still in doubt that the trinity doctrine was promulgated by a few bishops?you should also be aware that the books in the bible were selectively put together be the same council though at a later date with those not supportive of their views been left out.more readings


The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father" had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[5] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Derived from Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire in this context as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6[6] around 338, which states "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council); Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[7] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[8]

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.[9])

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independent of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[2] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[2] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity.

[edit] Character and purpose
The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[10] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[11] In the Council of Nicaea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[12]

[edit] Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[13] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[14] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[15] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[16] and Evagrius,[17] Hilary of Poitiers,[18] Jerome[19] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian; Nicholas of Myra; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[20] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Abkhazia (located in the western part of South Caucasus outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[20] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[20]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[21] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.[20][22]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[11] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[23] He was present as an observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[11] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[11][24]

[edit] Agenda and procedure

Fresco depicting the First Council of NicaeaThe agenda of the synod included:

The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
The Meletian schism
The validity of baptism by heretics
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. "Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous."[11] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed.

The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops "but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning."[12] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed.

[edit] Arian controversy

The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825Main articles: Arius, Arianism, and Arian controversy
The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[25]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[26] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.[27]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

[edit] Position of Arius (Arianism)
Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had not existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,"[28] and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation."

[edit] Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism)
Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the Father are one"; John 10:30). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"; John 17:21.

[edit] The Homoiousian compromise proposal
The Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance. This compromise position did not gain much support and eventually the idea was dropped.

[edit] Result of the debate
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[29] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

[edit] The Nicene Creed
Main article: Nicene Creed

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[30]

Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.
He is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.
Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians.

The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264–268), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops' common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements.

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.[9] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.

The Creed was amended to a new version by the First Council of Constantinople in 381

need more info?

Men of God in Nigeria know they are not God but people in Nigeria have been brain washed in many ways concerning the religious aspect in the country. They make money from you while you look up to making heaven

@enigma

Enigma:

Do you expect sensible people to compare James who was with Jesus and learned first hand from Jesus with a person like Oyakhilome? I put it to you again that only idolaters of Oyakhilome would think of holding Oyakhilome in higher regard than the apostle James.

James was never with Jesus, he was a pharisee ,he was not one of the apostles. He was Jesus younger brother. He didn't believe in Jesus until after the cross. He was a force among the Pharisees. When he got converted , he had Judaism mixed with his Christianity.

Paul on the other hand was converted by Jesus In A spectacular way. And Jesus taught him the deeper truths which the other apostles didn't have. Peter himself acknowledged that some ofnthe teachings of Paul were hard for them to understand. It was paul' that Jesus gave the revelation of the church to. Another apostle that had this deep insights was the closesth disciple to christ "John"   Many people dwell on the teachings of the gospels and refused to migrate to the teachings in the epistles .especially Pauline epistles. The gospels revealed who jesus was. The epistles reveal who the christian man is (in christ). Jesus didn't reveal everything in the gospels because they were yet to recieve the new birth.

John 16:12
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

He revealed by the holy spirit through paul and of course other apostles also but . But had the deeper knowledge and that is what we should go for. These are the things pastor chris is teaching.

Without looking down on James . He was a leader among the Pharisee sect . He had great followership among them.and this  group gave paul some tough time. Even Peter feared them. An incidence took place in Galatian when Peter saw some that came from James claiming , except a man be circumcised according to the law, he would not be saved. And that Jew should not eat with gentiles. James was the only one who called Christians sinners. He was the one that raised the issue of the anointing oil in the church. Jesus never used oil. And didn't tell us to use it. The practise was a Jewish tradition .but he brought it to the church,and many people are selling it today.   At the Jerusalem council James was quoting Jewish law for them there. I'm sure we discusses these in another thread before.

My point without being critical is that the church is still growing .  It is a work if the holy spirit. We can't judge present day work of the holy spirit by the imperfection of men in time past.

Paul had his personal reasons for some personal descisions he made. Someone else should not be judge by that but by the Word he teaches.

^^^ Where does one start with you??

You don't even know what you are talking about yet you assert them arrogantly! OK let me take just one or two things:

Joagbaje:

@enigma
James was never with Jesus, he was a pharisee

Please prove this with reliable evidence.

Joagbaje:
he was not one of the apostles.

Did James become an apostle at any time? If so, when did he become an apostle.

Joagbaje:
He didn't believe in Jesus until after the cross.

Again prove this with reliable evidence and do NOT twist that passage.

Joagbaje:
He was a force among the Pharisees. When he got converted , he had Judaism mixed with his Christianity.

Again, prove this.

I will leave the rest of your post - all rather tiresome and in fact I am beginning to wonder why I am again wasting time with you.

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.[9] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.

This is where the "blemish on Christianity" started, and it was started by "mere mortal men"! Not by God or Jesus.
This where "human knowledge" was used to determine spiritual principles and precepts!

Jesus never claimed equality with God, in terms of "physical personality", their "unity of purpose" (which some mis-interpreted as physical equality) is what he was referring to "when he said himself and the Father (God) are one!

Truly, Satan has blinded the eyes of some so that they may not or never know the truth!
May God help us.

I'm not one to contribute to nor read religous/faith discourse, i dont not also claim to be an authority on this kind of discussion, but this topic caught my fancy somehow.

Some things Agbaje said got me to check out wikipedia and its really revealing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

long read if you have the time.

Cheers.

I FOR ONE, GO TO CHURCH AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS,AND RECIEVE MY BLESSING FROM THE PASTOR.
I HAVE HEARD AND SEEN WHERE SOME MEMBERS ALMOST PROSTRATED FOR PASTOR,WHEN HE WAS NOT EVEN NOTICING THAT! DONT LET US BLAME THEM BUT THE MEMBERS.
WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM,I KEEP WONDERING WHEN PEOPLE DO SAY MY PASTOR IS MY MENTOR,IT PROVOKES.A MENTOR THAT U DONT KNOW WHAT HE EAT,DRINKS IN D MORNIN,AFTETRNOON& NITE.
WELL DONT LET'S JUDGE AS ITS BEING WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
LIVE THE WAY THAT PLEASES GOD,AND NOT THAT PLEASE PEOPLE AROUND YOU,COZ OURS SINS ARE IN HIS SIGHT.PSLM 51

Enigma:

^^^ Where does one start with you??
You don't even know what you are talking about yet you assert them arrogantly! OK let me take just one or two things:
Please prove this with reliable evidence.
Did James become an apostle at any time? If so, when did he become an apostle.
Again prove this with reliable evidence and do NOT twist that passage.
Again, prove this.
I will leave the rest of your post - all rather tiresome and in fact I am beginning to wonder why I am again wasting time with you.

James and others were not involved with Jesus in his earthly ministry. We only knew about their disturbances in his meeting.. . ."thy brethren seek thee". . and jesus would nit answer them saying "my brethren are those who hear my Words."
Invariably ,they were not listening to his tapes .They didn't believe in him as messiah.

John 7:5
5 Even his brothers didn't believe in him.

All these had been Predicted , so It was a fulfilment of prophecies.

Psalm 69:8
8I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. 9For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;

After the death of christ, he became converted and also was honoured as head of Jerusalem church .Peter initial position.he was a force in the early church.

Galatians 1:19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?


He and his group made paul compromise the gospel by pretending to obey Jewish law and custom.

Acts21:18
And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. [/b]22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 [b]Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: [/b]and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, [b]and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Thanks everyone for your input. I have been really uplifted by the posts of many people on this thread. All I set out to do this with topic is draw attention of both men of God and us, their members to this disturbing trend in Christendom. One, men of God need to go back to the basics - the bible and the one that called them. They need to realize that they are to, like someone rightly pointed out, to shepherd, to take care of the sheep. Unfortunately, many pastors or men of God these days are not shepherd that they are supposed to be. How many shepherds even care to run after a member that left their church with a view to helping the person see reasoning? These pastors are content with the 99 sheep they have with them, which is not what Christ taught. Our pastors need to know the difference between shepherding the sheep and desiring to know everything that is happening to a sheep. Pastors should let their members worship and glorify God and not the other way round. Also, they should let the members know how to pray on their own, do things on their own, face, confront and overcome life's challenges without resorting to emergency saviour - pastors, men of God.

Two, we the members are as guilty as the pastors. I guess maybe its our African tradition of idol worship that made us to always look for someone to do things for us. We want the pastor to know everything about us, our friends, our business deals, our progress, etc. We need to define when it is time to visit the pastor for spiritual guidance and going to him whenever anything happens to us or in our family. Like someone rightly said on this thread, this attitude of ours has made them to fall and unable to to resist it. So, anybody that refuses to disclose private or intimate details to pastors are perceived as not submitting or obedient. We, members should stop all these special treatment we give these church leaders as one campus leader pointed out on this thread. We are giving them a big temptation that their flesh cannot resist. Can you imagine sisters bringing food in the cooler just because this is our campus father. I am really sure they will not do the same for the brother they plan to marry. May God help u all. I am not saying we should not treat them well, far from it. All i am saying is that we should not take it too far. e.g, a wife obeying her pastor more than her husband in a domestic case that has nothing to do with the Bible. or a case where a woman receives the praise of Pastor for staying longer and doing the work of God while her husband and children suffers at home. We have a problem when we try to please a man of God and don't bother about God's approval or commendation.

In conclusion, let everyone of us draw nearer to God and pray for the grace to make heaven as that is the ultimate. Let the word of God be your guide and final statement, the word of your pastor.

P.S. The other post was done in error.

@Joagbaje

1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?


He and his group made paul compromise the gospel by pretending to obey Jewish law and custom.

Okay, so other Apostles take their "believing wife" along on missionary missions! ,,,and he asked why he should be deprived on this benefit?

Question is: What that request genuine or NOT?

When the Bible says" what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"! Why should "man" try to separate James and his wife, when such union is ordained by God?

Would you Pastor Agbaje, not go with your wife, if tomorrow, you are posted to CEC, New York branch? Would your wife not "elect" to go with you? Does she not participate in your ministry right NOW?
Was James not even ahead of the church (and should be credited), back then, judging by what is acceptable and practiced in your church today?

Why then do you "count this against James", as shown in your quote above?