₦airaland Forum

thehomer: 1. Morally wrong and whether or not it is natural depends on the degree of decomposition.

2. Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence she has.

3. Neither and natural.

4. Neither and natural.

4'.Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence you have.

5. Neither and unnatural.

6. That question has a hidden assumption which is that the unmodified human body has a certain purpose that cannot be co-opted.

By moral, I'm going by my personal opinion and by natural, I'm referring to the general physical appearance and capability of the average person.

Now, please answer these questions and present the idea of wrongness you're referring to along with the idea of natural you're using. Also, please tie the ideas here to the topic which is homosexuality.

It is true that many laws, and moral concepts have a religious origin. In some countries cut the hand of a thief is natural, in other countries seems rather wild. But not always, our moral concept, agrees with the religious criterion.
If for you, homosexuality is immoral (that's not my opinion) you need not relate to the religious theme.
Satan has nothing to do with it.
You are indirectly saying that all homosexuals are satanic, and that's something that I oppose it absolutely.

buzugee: LOL

HEY AAMIGOOSSSSS you dont see the joke in my speech ? i am playing with you. dont take it serious this is nigerian sense of humor. its wacky

Hey ... You put me in an embarrassing situation.
Is that through discussion with Enigma, I assumed you meant it ...
I feel so ashamed now ... I did not understand ...
I beg your pardon.
You understand that it is very difficult (through translator) to follow the thread and understand some jokes.
I beg your pardon!

A secular country it claims to be master of his fate, be free from outside interference to make decisions, that the beliefs of its citizens are respected according to the Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.
I live in a secular country, and I am a strong supporter of the secular state.

I'm not gay. But I respect the decisions of others.
I do not think that everything that we do not like is the fault of the devil.
There are several reasons why an individual (male or female) chooses to be homosexual. Each of these reasons deserves a particular study.
To generalize, saying that "homosexuality" is a matter of Satan, is absolutely incorrect.

Deep Sight: ^^^ And i'm really glad to learn the clarification that he is using a translating software, hance the grammatical errors

Dear friend.
That is true. I have clarified many times. I do not speak English.
I use a translator.
Maybe someone understand that translate what you write, and also translate what I write is not easy.
It would not make sense to do all that to call someone "stupid" or making fun of people. My purpose is another.
Nor do I have two nicknames (I could not have two nicks) as many here have ...
I appreciate your kindness.
A sincere hug.

Pastor AIO: Ptolomeus is fitting right in to this our Nairaland. I was at first a bit worried that typical nigerian rudeness and insensitivity would drive him away, and further tarnish our reputation amongst foreigners.

But now I see that my worries were misplaced. Ptolomeus is probably a direct descendant of a nigerian because the way he is so capable of answering insults with insults is so 9ja-ish. It warms my heart.

Dear Pastor AIO.
I appreciate your consideration.
I have always admired their positions, and inner peace.
Are you an admirable person.
Indeed, I have African blood in my veins. On the paternal side, my grandmother was a slave.
As you know, I have dedicated my life to the study of Africa. The follies of a couple of fools I never will change the infinite affection I have for Nigeria and the African continent.
There are fools everywhere, even in Nigeria.
I appreciate your respect, consideration, and all its activities, which I enjoy tremendously.
I reiterate to you that the existence of two flies do not affect my appreciation for the forum, and all the friends I have here.
A warm hug!

Enigma: Exactly my point!

He a homie --- especially when it comes to throwing insults.

Lord dishonest.
I see you are following my footsteps in the forum. That is an attitude typical of dogs, when they follow their masters. Enigma ... try to grow, grow ... It is good to have attitudes of pet.
Please stop nibbling my pants, I like dogs, but not to that extreme.
Are you masochistic?
I told you
THE EAGLES NOT HUNT FLY .

buzugee: he was one of those slaves taken from nigeria to go work the coccaina fields in uruguay

Estimate.
It was you who reached out and invited me to be friends. I accepted at heart, I have a word. I understand that there are issues on which you and I may think differently, but I have only one word, I thought his friend and I confess to you that I was surprised with what you have written me.
Uruguay is not grown in cocaine ... You should learn.
I am writing to you clearly, IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE, I do not write insults in Spanish ... that's cobrades.
I regret his change of heart, but I also understand that not everybody have one word ...
I will not mention here its origin or where you live, nor do I care for my degradation. I am not the forum for that.
be happy

Enigma: Whatever!

You already have my advice: continue in your ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.


Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next no ...
You have completely lost his temper, has distorted thread.
You have done that of ex-profeso, because it could not provide a single element for its outdated idea.
His fanaticism compels him to intervene, but lacks the knowledge and arguments. You just insulted, screamed and kicked like a sulkily child and uneducated.
I'm not going to continue arguing with you because you do not argue, nor think. It is impossible to speak with an slowpoke like you. I do not enter the forum to insult, so I prefer not to intervene more in this thread. You and I are not going to understand ... from up here I can not quite read what you write from down there.
Be happy and do not forget my advice .. drink plenty of fresh milk.
Do you yelling uselessly from down there.
The eagles do not hunt flies.

OLAADEGBU: This is the typical misconception of who and what a Christian is.

Olaadegbu: You and I may disagree. We do not have to think alike. I recognize that you are an educated person, unlike many fans, you do not offend, does not disqualify anyone, and that makes you a person who deserves respect.
Although I disagree with you, I respect you, whether many of the threads that you open are endless monologues propagandistic that lead nowhere.
I want you and I we reason that:
If you claim to be Christian, what authority do I have to deny it?
You know that there are Catholics who do not drink wine, and others do ... which one is more Catholic? I think both are.
Obama was defined as a Christian, it is common knowledge that attends the ceremonies ...
Olaadegbu, you are an intelligent person ... you can not be more royalist than the King ... No one can say that the Pope is not Catholic. If Obama is defined as a Christian, because he is Christian!
Perhaps the pastor of the church he attends Obama denies that he is Catholic?
And you and me, by what authority are we to deny what Obama and his pastor say? ...
For a moment we use logic, and avoid further in this dialogue of the deaf.
I send a big hug.

Enigma: Yes, let's see indeed.

1. You insult me by asking me to read something other than the Bible. That is very daft of you; extremely daft.

2. You spread falsehood here. I am entitled to point out that you are spreading falsehood. At first, perhaps ignorantly; but if after being given better information, you continue to spread the falsehood, then it is reasonable to suspect you of deliberate dishonesty because of some pathetic agenda of yours.

3. You now call me an illiterate! And you do not have enough sense to see how verily daft that is!

You see, sir undesirable.
You started with the insults, showing that their religion is poorly educated people. That entitles me to call him illiterate, poorly educated, and certainly dishonest, (exactly as you called me). Sorry that your hatred, bigotry and inability to deal with an issue with education lead him to this.
Personally I cuncluido the theme, you do not have level or deserves to be treated as a person.
Its mud splatters.
Pray a lot and drink plenty of milk ..

Enigma: Please continue in your ignorance and, most probably, deliberate dishonesty as well.

Let's see.
I've put up here call me satanist, heretic, ignorant, but you call me dishonest is something I will not allow.
You are an idiot and illiterate fan does not entitle you to call me dishonest. I will ask that from now on again, watch your expressions with me. I have a course that will exacerbate their fanaticism, blind him, and in the absence of arguments comes the insult, because you education and common sense. Instead of reading the Bible, you should go back to school to learn education.
Once that clarification step to answer.
Lord dishonest and rude.
If you say that Jesus is God, be faithful because it is a spiritualist religion and worship the spirit of the dead is something they do animistic religions.

Now, I advise you to return to school, study education, and drink plenty of milk, as for a whippersnapper like you to call me dishonest, should grow much yet.
Greetings, Mr. animist.

We pull the same thing, right?
Please read something other than the Bible ... sometimes positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

First Council of Nicaea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Council of Nicaea
Date 325 AD
Accepted by Anglicans
Assyrian Church of the East
Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Protestants
Roman Catholics

Previous council Council of Jerusalem (though not considered ecumenical)
Next council First Council of Constantinople
Convoked by Emperor Constantine I
Presided by St. Alexander of Alexandria (and also Emperor Constantine)[1]
Attendance 250–318 (only five from Western Church)
Topics of discussion Arianism, celebration of Passover (Easter), ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.[2]
Documents and statements Original Nicene Creed,[3] 20 canons,[4] and an epistle[2]
Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The First Council of Nicaea (naɪsi:ə; Greek: Νίκαια) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter,[2] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7][8]

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Character and purpose
3 Attendees
4 Agenda and procedure
5 Arian controversy
5.1 Position of Arius (Arianism)
5.2 Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism)
5.3 The Homoiousian compromise proposal
5.4 Result of the debate
6 The Nicene Creed
7 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar
8 Meletian schism
9 Promulgation of canon law
10 Effects of the Council
11 Misconceptions
11.1 The biblical canon
11.2 The Trinity
11.3 The role of Constantine
11.4 The role of the Bishop of Rome
12 See also
13 Bibliography
13.1 Primary sources
13.2 Literature
14 References
15 External links

[edit] Overview
Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of NiceaThe First Council of Nicaea is the first ecumenical council of the catholic Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, extra-biblical, uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional 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 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.[9] 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 (Greek: οἰκουμένη), "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[10] around 338, which states "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical Council); Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[11] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[12]

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son 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 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 agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria[13]). The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides.

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an epistle to the Church of Alexandria in which is simply stated

We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you.[14]

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[5] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[5] 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
Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1000).The First Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine the Great 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.[15] 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 Nicea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, 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.[16] In the Council of Nicea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[17]

[edit] AttendeesConstantine 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,[18] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[19] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[20] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[21] and Evagrius,[22] Hilary of Poitiers,[23] Jerome[24] 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 Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 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. Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[25]

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; Nicholas of Myra, from whom the popular Santa Claus character would be derived; 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)[26] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[27][28] From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia.

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,[26] 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.[26]

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,[29] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.[26][30]

"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."[16] 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."[31] 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.[16] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[16][32]

[edit] Agenda and procedure
Fresco depicting the First Council of Nicea.The 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[citation needed]
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicea, 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."[16] Bishops Theognis of Nicea 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."[17] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed.

[edit] Arian controversyMain articles: Arius, Arianism, and Arian controversy

The synod of Nicea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825The 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, from the Greek: ὁμοιούσιος from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being" later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[33]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[34] 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.[35]

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 Nicea 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 no 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,"[36] 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 proposalThe 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 debateThe 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,[37] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

[edit] The Nicene CreedMain article: Nicene Creed

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicea (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 Nicea, 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.[38]

Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternality 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 "one in being with 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.[13] 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.

[edit] Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendarThe feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances.

As early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later 3rd century some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.[39]

Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.[40] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.[41]

The controversy between those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the month of Nisan as defined by Jews. Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called "protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed by the existence of sermons,[42] canons,[43] and tracts[44] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 4th century.

These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies. (See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not decree that Easter must fall on Sunday. This was already the practice almost everywhere.[45]

Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 15 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover" in the Hebrew calendar. By endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or negative, on the Jewish calendar. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that Easter must always follow Nisan 15 in the Hebrew calendar, was not formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de-facto state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 15.[46]

"At the council we also considered the issue of our holiest day, Easter, and it was determined by common consent that everyone, everywhere should celebrate it on one and the same day. For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be kept by all without variation, using the same order and a clear arrangement? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast following the custom of the Jews, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. Since we have cast aside their way of calculating the date of the festival, we can ensure that future generations can celebrate this observance at the more accurate time which we have kept from the first day of the passion until the present time...."

— Emperor Constantine, following the Council of Nicaea[47]

A very bad use of interpretation. "I am in you and you are in my"
Very misunderstood.
I understand that like to read the Bible, and read only that, but is also good to read about history. Clarifies many things.
Without the Council of Nicea did not speak of trilogy.
Today you would not be defending the trilogy because it simply would not exist.
The trilogy was born as a political solution of Constantine, which was opposed by many bishops ( Nicomedia and Arius) but ended up accepting it.
Finally, if you cite the Bible (which is all they read) is expected to correctly interpret the passages.
thanks

thehomer: How else could he have known where Osama bin Laden was?

Dear friend:
(Speak softly, because the CIA can learn, but he is actually the new Bin Laden's secret personality. Has infiltrated into the forum to haunt us with their posts)

If I have friends on the planet X or Nibiru.
They are good people, possibly the only fault of these is the continuing need to make jokes in bad taste, and drink heavily.

Mavor: Satan attackin the church

Are you Jewish?
Have you ever read the Bible?
You know that still suspected (not been able to prove) that certain Jewish groups sacrificed Christian children to Jehovah?
I can not take care of your ignorance ... you read, educate yourself.
Not good review of what is ignored ... the ridiculous is a very high price.
There is something you should tremer more than the devil ... THE IGNORANCE

My respects.

jmoore: The guy Ptolomeus is among the false teachers, he got no other quotes to make from the bible.

He will also claim that Matthew 17:33 and Matthew 28:9 was written 300 years after the death of Jesus.

Moreover that we now know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen doesn't make water not to contain hydrogen and oxygen before our knowledge of elements of water.




Why did Jesus not correct him if Thomas was wrong?



John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.” Please go and learn the bible if you call yourself a christian.

gentleman
Thank you very much for calling guy, and understatement.
Each one is expressed, with her ​​intellectual level that you have.
I'm so glad you know the composition of the water. When someone is caught fanaticism like you, often confused water with alcohol.
Let there be a single parent does not mean that there is a trilogy. Nor if there is a child.
This is not discussing the existence of God (if you want to do) but, if Jesus is God or not.
I understand that you ignore what happened at Nicea in 325 AD, but that's part of their ignorance, and I am not guilty of that.
Read it! , Educate yourself, learn before you say, because be ridiculous is not pleasant.
Apparently you only read the Bible, and what is bad.
Also drink only water, and possibly virgin to avoid sins and saved from hell ...
Dear sir my greatest respect.

Pastor AIO: What I am getting from all of this is that anybody can be a christian as long as they [size=15pt]don't[/size] do certain things.

These things include:

1)They must not respect the religion of others

2) They must be homophobic, ie they must not be tolerant of people who are different from them.

3) They must not practice their religion in private but must make as much noise as possible on every street corner.

4) They must not practice anything that is not approved of by a large enough section of the society.

5) They must not in any way or form live and practice their religion in a way that contrary to Olaadegbu's biases.

100% agree with you!

jmoore: I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave.

Just to show the full verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly shows that Son of God is God.


And you skipped your wrong interpretation of the point below. It is interesting how you try to pick from point 1 to 8 I gave and left out point 7.

7-Matthew 17:33 "And those who were in the boat "worshiped Him", saying, “You are certainly a "God’s Son!”"
Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and "worshiped Him.""
They worshiped him because he is God.

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!

He had to wait almost 300 years after the death of Jesus, so that at the Council of Nicea the Catholic Church "decreed" that Jesus was God.
You WANT that Jesus is God ... but the Old Testament says otherwise, and 300 years after Jesus' death no one accepted it.
Jesus was an common man, whose aim was to perform a transformation in the Jewish religion. Jesus was Jewish, and never had the intention to build another church.
Accept it. Leave you lying to yourself.

thehomer: How do you know that Obama doesn't perform numbers 1 to 4?

Is that he is a spy for Al-Qaeda.

OLAADEGBU: The Moral Laws that God passed to His people in Ex.20:1-17; and how they can be interpreted and applied to our lives today.

[b][1] THEN GOD spoke all these words:
[2] I am the Lord your God, Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

[3] You shall have no other gods before or besides Me.

[4] You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

[5] You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me,

[6] But showing mercy and steadfast love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

[7] You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

[8] [Earnestly] remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (withdrawn from common employment and dedicated to God).

[9] Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

[10] But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your domestic animals, or the sojourner within your gates.

[11] For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it [set it apart for His purposes].

[12] Regard (treat with honor, due obedience, and courtesy) your father and mother, that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God gives you.

[13] You shall not commit murder.

[14] You shall not commit adultery.

[15] You shall not steal.

[16] You shall not witness falsely against your neighbor.

[17] You shall not covet your neighbor's house, your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.[/b]

Amplified Bible.

Those are the laws of the Judeo-Christian God?
It really is contradictory because this same God took pleasure in receiving human sacrifices in his name ...
Lev: "10.11,12., Judges 11:30-39, Numbers 25:1-13, Samuel 21:1-9, (Jeremiah 7:31) ...

That god enjoyed when entire villages razed murdering children and old order ...
That God called to him ... and child sacrifice greatly enjoyed when they killed those kids ...
Contradictory truth?

Deep Sight: Christian scripture discloses Jesus as a man only. Not God. Not half God-Half Man. A man.

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, " Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Exactly. Excellent contribution!
Jesus was never seen God. In the fourth century AD, the Nicene Council, organized by Constantine, decided by majority that "Jesus is God" and that there is a trilogy "father, son. Holy spirit."
Jesus never said he was God, never wanted to found a new church, but changes in the Jewish church (to which he belonged).
It was at the Council of Nicea that "invented" the new idea that Jesus was God. (Constantine political interests).

Nobody thought then, which created the great contradiction that a god was killed by humans in the most humiliating that existed at the time.

It is important to read history, not just read the Bible.
The books do not bite!

.

.

jmoore: Jephthah's daughter was denied marriage, that was the sacrifice and not the killing. The sacrifice was for her to remain a virgin and not to sleep with any man.

from Judges 11:30-39

"And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man...... "



Looking for cheap popularity? You can post the whole bible in this forum. Haters of God always got their brains twisted to misinterpret what they do not know.

Excuse me you.
I do not seek popularity, neither cheap nor expensive. I do not know why you insult me​​. I have not disrespected or offended you.
You have offended because I opened a thread, and I stand with biblical passages that no one can deny. You want to change the meaning of the Bible. The Bible says what I wrote, not what you want. The Bible is very accurate. Corresponds to argue not for giving a personal opinion without any basis.
You are mixing two different things. Crying for virginity, and implementation.
What happened was this:
Judges 11, Jephthah vote reckless, who promised God that if he won a battle, would sacrifice the first person to felicitase, which proved to be his own only child. The daughter asked the father two months to mourn her virginity and the father did it. After two months the girl turned and ran her father. As you can see, are two different things. The father carried his daughter in order of Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian God).


You are not Christian. A Christian does not deny what the Bible says, that would be heresy.
Do not fear, I will not publish here all the Bible, only publish the passages relating to human and animal sacrifices demanded by the Jewish-Christian god.
It is a way to prove what I say. You do the same, read the bible, not just give your outdated unsubstantiated opinion.
And I reiterate. You do not insult, not offend.
Learn education. Your parents have not taught to speak politely? Your religion has not taught him to respect others?

Cubid: destroying d works of d devil, exposing hypocrites

Exactly. That's what happens to Joshua.
The hypocrite is exposed false prophet.
And anadie believe in it. The whole world has known him as a charlatan.

otooro: this will go for a joke...

Of course, my friend ...
But many Christians would be willing to give all his money to go to heaven ... They not only pay the pastor for that ...

buzugee: this is deep and insightful and symbolic. powerful statement Ptolomeus. cuz life has layers and you are always crying when peeling the layers cuz some of em layers will make you cry.

No, no. I do not think that makes me mourn ...
Christians say that God loves me all-forgiving ... it is a good god ... I believe in what they say ... He did not make me mourn ...
The Jewish-Christian god loves me ... although he is not reciprocated.