₦airaland Forum

noetic15:
what do u understand by the word "contradiction" ?

jagunlabi:
What is the medical term for such a state of mind again?

Deep Sight:
Paranoid Psychosis.

Krayola:
Modupe just made an argument for it, several Christians on NL have made arguments for it.

Krayola:
According to your post they claimed it was handed down from the apostles. Were u there? How do you know it wasn't? Prove that it wasn't. 

jagunlabi:
What is the medical term for such a state of mind again?

Krayola:
Your cosmological argument and the Trinity fall in the same category IMO. Thats all I'm saying.

Krayola:
those arguments that u make have been made for centuries and debunked over and over again. . .

Krayola:
Deepsight. . .what about all those fallacious arguments to use to "prove" God's existence. How are those different from the trinity? they seem just as ridiculous to moi. . .  And they were all made up by "theologians and ph[b]olodo[/b]phers" trying hard to show that God exists. How that different from Nicea? They all came from men, and are all bollocks. . . 

discuss. . .   

These cheap shots we throw at each other are ridiculous. Everyone just wants to feel that their belief is better than others, or more "well reasoned", or whateva.  It's fukn pathetic

Krayola:
They all came from men, and are all bollocks. . .

Krayola:
These cheap shots we throw at each other are ridiculous. Everyone just wants to feel that their belief is better than others, or more "well reasoned", or whateva. It's fukn pathetic

Deep Sight:
It is no surprise therefore, that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible, and that previous attempts to smuggle the doctrine into the Bible (See KJV 1 Jn 5: 7) - HAVE BEEN EXPUNGED FROM ALL MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE DISCOVERY OF OLDER MANUSCRIPTS SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE EARLIEST VERSIONS!

Overview
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 invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. [2] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found 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" literally means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire, 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[3] around 338 "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369,[4] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[5]

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to 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 took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[6]).

[size=16pt]ARIAN CONTROVERSY[/size]
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.[23]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, 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.

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 ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". 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.

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. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

1.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.
2.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. This is considered one of the mysteries of the catholic church.
3.Finally, 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.

davidylan:
Another deluded fellow.

Deep Sight:
PASTOR - YOU ALMOST ESCAPED IT! YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE DEATH AND RESURECTION OCCURING IN ETERNITY - WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

_{Was it perhaps so that even aliens living in the 5th dimension can take advantage of the redemption on the cross . . .}

Pastor AIO:
Oh shucks! Can we get into that another day? I'm not in the head space for it at the moment.

Jakumo:
Sir, I do apologise for my parent's inability to fund my education beyond the kindergarten level, and I would certainly be most grateful for any donations you might be kind enough to allocate towards my enlightenment, so that I will at least know which way up to hold the EFCC  documentation when I do finally muster the courage to attempt reading it.

While I await this kind gesture, may I remind you that Nigeria's EFCC anti-corruption agency is empowered to investigate and prosecute ALL crimes which generate financial returns for outlaws, ranging from the embezzlement of state funds by venal officials, to drug running, extortion and advanced fee 419 fraud, Nigeria's trademark felony.  

Bank fraud is only a subset of the entire gambit of illegality that thrives in Nigeria, consuming the place alive, and so preserving the country's well-earned reputation as a squalid haven of industrial scale criminality.  The EFCC happens to be the agency empowered by the Nigerian government to investigate AND PROSECUTE treasury looters AS WELL AS bank looters, among sundry other sleaze-bags, and that legal process requires generous funding to effectively pursue.   Such requisite financial muscle is best extracted from the deep pockets of the felons being nailed, therefore whatever percentage of stolen money that is appropriated for that endeavor by the cops will by definition leave FAR more change in public coffers than the ZERO dollars that would have been left if the criminals evaded all prosecution initiatives and were left free to hide the swag as they see fit.

There is, without doubt, a direct correlation and functional equivalence between the US Drug Enforcement Agency and Nigeria's EFCC corruption pit bull, no matter how depressing that comparison may seem to you. May I suggest you sit down for a stiff drink or two, if you happen to suspect that the EFCC is about to drop the hammer on you, for that, regrettably, is about the only measure that will make the slightest difference when the men in red coats come knocking.

Jakumo:
Once intercepted, the proceeds of crime are best deployed to fight crime, conveniently lightening the burden on state resources. This pragmatic philosophy is exemplified by the way the US Drug Enforcement Agency retains a HUGE chunk of the raw cash and asset forfeiture income accrued from narcotics busts, to further the cause of apprehending and neutralizing narco-cowboys, whose insidious products and violent conduct so poison societies.

Providing that the innocent are never framed, Nigeria's FCC Fraud Squad deserves to keep a full 50% of the embezzled loot they trace and seize, so that more advanced surveillance technology, vehicles and weapons can be procured to tip the scales in the favor of the victimized majority, by facilitating the investigation, pursuit and brutal sanction of all those who plunder national wealth in ways that indirectly inflict so many more casualties than could ever be claimed by a mere substance abuse epidemic.

Deep Sight:
It beggars belief that the Atheist is yet to apprehend the philosophical issue contained in this simple question: why does anything exist at all? Why not non-existence? Why existence as opposed to non-existence?

A gospel (from Old English, gōd spell "good news" is a writing that describes the life of Jesus. The word is primarily used to refer to the four canonical gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 80. [1][2] They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100 - 150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.[3]

The first canonical gospel written is thought by most scholars to be Mark (c 65-70), which was according to the majority used as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.[2] In modern source criticism, Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have used a common source, the Q document,[2] These first three gospels are called the synoptic gospels because they share similar incidents, teachings, and even much language.[2] The last gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a very different picture of Jesus and his ministry from the synoptics.[2] In differentiating history from invention, historians interpret the gospel accounts skeptically.[4] The synoptic evangelists demonstrated reserve in altering or inventing stories about Jesus, and historians regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus.[4] Scholars[who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, see also Greek primacy.

The synoptic gospels are the source of many popular stories, parables, and sermons, such as Jesus' humble birth in Bethlehem, the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Last Supper, and the Great Commission. John provides a theological description of Jesus as the eternal Word, the unique savior of humanity. All four attest to his Sonship, miraculous power, crucifixion, and resurrection. Portions of the gospels are traditionally read aloud during church services as a formal part of the liturgy.

More generally, gospels compose a genre of early Christian literature.[5] Gospels that did not become canonical likely also circulated in early Christianity. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas, lack the narrative framework typical of a gospel.[6] These gospels appeared later than the canonical gospels, and in the case of Thomas, after the Bible was officially cannonized.

Origin of the canonical gospels

The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source". This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". [10].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9-20) was most likely composed early in the second century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century.[11] The birth and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition.[12] Luke and Matthew may have originally appeared without their first two chapters.[12]

The general consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.

Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[13] c 65-70[2]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[13] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[13], c 80-85[2]
John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[14] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

davidylan:
what is the point of all these long long boring threads that are long on pretended "scholarship" but really leave the reader wondering what the thread is meant to say?

Time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big Bang simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

viaro:
Wow! I like love you guys for inviting a discussion, and I shall try and maintain some decorum! I wish many people can follow these examples from you guys.

Deep Sight, how can I thank you for not taking my rough side personally? I deeply appreciate that happy attitude you demonstrate. This one just blasted me to the floor in all laughter. . ROFL. .!! Please, Deep Sight, that was silly of me! Please, I'm begging and deeply regret that brashness on my part.

Now we can move on. . one step at a time.