The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council.
It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council,
the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he
provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members.[/QUOTE] :heated:
i'm just saying...
The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was
under that of
Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius,
may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or
that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
and anathematize is...
"To understand the word anathema", says Vigouroux, "we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of."
well, so long as folks could still talk about it...;D
so, the likelihood of the "oppositions" point of view would be??? :hiding:
but, hey, MAYBE they say...
The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria
:uuh:
hmmm...books...into the fire....oh well, as long as nothing was destroyed!
mg:
let's see, any other goodies here...
regarding Easter:
In any case it must be admitted that while in the New Testament we have definite mention of the observance of the Sunday, or "Lord's Day", there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival. Some are inclined to think that the Christian Easter first appears as setting a term to the great paschal fast which, as we learn from Irenaeus, was very variously kept in the sub-Apostolic Age
well, except for:
KJV Acts 12:
4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
5Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
6And when Herod
durn, maybe i'm wrong...
i mean, they wouldn't change THAT!
or would they...
kay:
lets see a different version:
NIV
4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the
Passover.
5So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him
oops, looks like a draw, one of each...
let's check another...
Amplified:
3And when he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded further and arrested Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread [the Passover week].
4And when he had seized [Peter], he put him in prison and delivered him to four squads of soldiers of four each to guard him, purposing after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.
5So Peter
wow, 2 to 1...
Young's literal:
3and having seen that it is pleasing to the Jews, he added to lay hold of Peter also -- and they were the days of the unleavened food --
4whom also having seized, he did put in prison, having delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the passover to bring him forth to the people
3 to 1!
if you'll notice (i missed it the 1st time), the "feast of unleavened days" as well as Passover is used.
but why would "Christians" use THOSE terms...DO YOU THINK, that MAYBE they used those terms because THEY STILL KEPT THOSE FESTIVALS!!!
but that's OK, as long as there's:
there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival.
:blind:
what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! :happy:
i'll let that stuff be digest for now...
Peace,
:wasalamex
Yusuf
Why don't you just believe Christians when they say it's simply three aspects of the same God. What does it matter that they say it has three parts if Christians accept the oneness of God and they repeat over and over that they are monotheists? Even more important, do you think this 'three parts of one being' influences their actions? Do they become less moral because of it?
