Other Councils following Nicia continued the work. God got His word through to us. The plan of salvation and God's nature are well laid out in His imperative and indicative work.
If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern by mormons. There's an anti-Christian group of mormons here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Christian Church They also have a missionary force of 50,000 young men that go door to door attacking Christianity and claiming to be the true church.. Most of what they believe and try to push door to door is reguritated heresy that was condemned by the Christian Church more than a thousand years ago. Mormonism is decidedly not Christian.
They have a misguided, feelings-based obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite among mormons and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. Frequently, you see this tactic employed when discussing the Trinity. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.
They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using Christian sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. Christians have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done by mormons.
Another favorite is the "Pray and ask God if this is true tactic." This mormon tactic is to attempt to take you from the objective ground of truth in the Bible onto the subjective ground of feelings. Feelings are never the basis of truth. The reason they attempt this is simple... once you accept feelings as a basis of truth, they can get you to believe any bizzare thing their religion teaches (multiple gods, celestial sex and breeding gods, etc.).
After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.
The latest twist in the Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.
Here's a few links to get your started from a Christian viewpoint. If you are a mormon and considering leaving the religion, as so many do, these links will be of great help.
http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html
http://www.exmormonsforjesus.org/
http://4mormon.org/ex-mormon.php
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/
Now you will likely notice all kinds of whining mormon posts pop up as usual. Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you?
Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.
I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and [the real Biblical] Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Special thanks to Paragon non-defender for providing the template for this post.
Okay, I tried to read it but it’s all over the place...what point are you trying to make??? ...magritte
The bishops were offered the facilities of the imperial post system - free travel and lodging to and from their episcopal sees to the meeting - to encourage as full an attendance as possible. Constantine formally opened the session.
The churches agreed to all celebrate Easter on the same day. The issue of how to establish the date of Easter was not settled until long afterwards however.
| Table of contents |
|
|
The first Council of Nicaea is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against heretical doctrines; but the Council of Nice is characterized by the further step from a defensive position to positive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith.
In the Arian controversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship. Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in Bithynia, a place easily accessible to the majority of the bishops, especially those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.
The number of members can not be accurately stated; Athanasius counted 318, Eusebius only 250. As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the preponderating number; the first rank being held by the three archbishops Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem, and by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea.
A special prominence attached to this council also because the persecutions had just ended, and it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith.
The occident sent not more than five representatives in equal distribution from the provinces, Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Cordova from Spain, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. These ecclesiastical dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes.
Among the assistants it was Athanasius, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished himself as the "most vigorous fighter against the Arians," and similarly Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople, a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop.
The points to be discussed at the synod were:
At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an uncompromising front toward each other. The Arians entrusted the representation of their interests to Eusebius of Caesarea, whose scholarship and eloquence made a great impression upon the emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians called forth a storm of resentment among the opponents; two minorities vividly interested in contrary opinions opposed each other, but between them yawned indifference. In their behalf, as well as for his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to represent the Arians, appeared as a mediator; and in asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be the establishment of the peace of the Church, he at the same time agreed with his exalted protector.
He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol of his own congregation at Caesarea, by means of which the differing opinions might be reconciled. The emperor, who pursued the purely political intentions of a successful pacification, could desire no more welcome proposition and immediately confirmed it by making it his own. In this way he did not overpower the majority, but most probably met its wishes; for if the orthodox had really been able to count on a preponderating majority, even the predilection of the emperor would not have hindered them from setting up their own confession in the manner of that proposed by Bishop Alexander in his first circular letter.
But far from daring such an attempt, the majority (without resistance) complied, asserting their rights only in the form of amending clauses. While such modes of procedure are more characteristic of minorities than of majorities, their use by the latter does not necessarily debar victory, as indeed in this case it did not.
All propositions of the orthodox during the remainder of the controversy having been accepted, it is furthermore evident, first: that the Arians of conviction were in the minority; second: that the majority (or deciding body) did not possess, and hence did not assert, convictions of a dogmatic nature. These are, considered in a general way, the presuppositions of the world-important decisions of the Council of Nicaea.
But for the partisans of Bishop Alexander the definitions were too vague; they rendered them more concise, and if the Nicene Creed be compared with its model, that of Caesarea, it seems to have originated in some omissions from the second article which was the only one in question. To these omissions corresponded three no less important additions:
The emperor was intent upon a decisive settlement of the question; at first he probably had no predilection for either of the conceptions of the two contending parties, but perceiving that the original propositions of Eusebius, which supposedly furthered peace, effected the very opposite, he may involuntarily have considered whether he could not reach his aim more quickly by seeking an agreement with the anti-Arians.
Undoubtedly there were not wanting attempts at personal mediation, in the first place on the part of Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the most decided Homoousians, and at the time of the council the confidant of the emperor in all affairs of the Church. He stands at the head of the lists of participants, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual success of the symbol. But when it is considered that great men like Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra belonged to the anti-Arian party, it does not seem strange that the Homoousians, in spite of being in the minority, gained the final victory.
Eusebius of Caesarea, in spite of his sympathies for Arius, accepted the decisions of the council, subscribing even the condemnatory clauses against Arius. The number of persons of prominence among the opponents was not so considerable; for after the debates, extending over four weeks, there were only two adherents of Arius who remained steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais; of the three others upon whom Arius might have counted, Maria of Chalcedon finally subscribed the whole symbol, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice at least its positive part, without the condemnatory clauses against Arius.
The emperor now actually fulfilled his threat, according to which everybody who refused to sign had to face exile. Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were excommunicated. The works of Arius were confiscated in order to be burnt. But it soon appeared that even force could not silence the disputes, and that under the pressure of such procedure the controversy on the equality of Christ with God assumed unthought-of dimensions; for the Council of Nicaea had done away with the indifference of the masses to theological distinctions.
The council assumed the task of regulating these differences in conformity with the usages of the other churches, because the dependence of some congregations on a Jewish peculiarity was offensive. The Council of Nicaea, however, did not declare the Alexandrine cycle of Easter as alone canonical, but gave the bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Easter to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Easter, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon; thus inviting opposition even on this point in due season.
Then began the proceedings against the Meletian schism, which, on account of the great popularity of the movement, took an extremely mild development and cost its founder only suspension from office, but no degradation.
Finally there followed the prescription of twenty canons or rules of discipline:
(1) prohibition of self-castration;
(2) establishment of a minimum term for catechizing;
(3) prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of females who might bring him under suspicion;
(4) consecration of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;
(5) provision for two provincial synods to be held annually;
(6) exceptional position granted to Alexandria and Rome as episcopal sees;
(7) recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;
(8) provision for agreement with the Novatians;
(9-14) provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;
(15-16) prohibition of the removal of priests;
(17) prohibition of usury among the clergy;
(18) precedence of bishops and presbyters over deacons in taking the Eucharist;
(19) declaration of the invalidity of baptism by heretics;
(20) attitude at prayer on Pentecost.
On July 25, 325, the fathers of the council celebrated the emperor's twentieth anniversary and then dispersed. In his valedictory address the emperor again informed his hearers how averse he was to all dogmatic controversy, and in a circular letter he announced the accomplished unity of practise by the whole Church in the matter of the celebration of Easter.
But the illusion of victory did not last, the emperor experiencing stroke after stroke of disappointment and misfortune. The continuation of the synod in 327 questioned every result achieved in 325. Arius as well as the friends punished with him and the Meletians regained nearly all rights which they had lost.
See also: Ecumenical council, Second Council of Nicaea
Does this mean that you as a mormon are going to stop misrepresenting the events around Nicea.
I only got as far as the part about eating swine. Why did christians start eating pig meat anyway?
Bookmark for later.
So, instead, you follow the works of another man, just like Mohammed of the mooselimbs, that wanted sex with children and many women and so he created a religion stating God gave him secrets to tell the world.
I’ll take the Bible at its word and not take the word of just another wackjob man looking to scam women and children into taking off their clothes. Next thing you know you will be tell us David Koresh of Waco really was Jesus Christ and we need to follow his words.
Mormons are not Christians. They are a religion to themselves. Christians follow Christ and the Bible. We don’t need Joseph Smith rewriting things to suit his earthly desires, just like Mad Mo did.
Ping for later........
So, Resty, at first glance, you're taking stuff that was originally mentioned in Islam and Atheist forums? Is that right?
Secondly, is that a Muslim name...Laulak Siddique...posting in that Muslim forum...??
And if so, do they want their e-mail -- trumpeted nationwide by you? [I'll assume for the second that the second e-mail shown, a college student e-mail address, is probably no longer active given it was a 2001 reference]
Did you e-mail Siddique at Resty, to see if they would give you permission to do that?
And with the other one, KSchneid -- you want to at least double-check to make sure that e-mail is not active -- or if it is, you wanna see if you can snag permission before you blast their e-mail address world-wide?
Yes? No? You don't care?
(And if it's "You don't care"...let's see if you'll do unto others as you would want done for yourself by posting your own e-mail address on this thread)
Would you believe that there are 6, 8-9 various accounts of Joseph Smith's 'vision' as well!
And that wasn't NEARLY as long ago as Nicea!
Would you believe that there are MORMONs who ACCEPT JS' words on things, with NO evidence at ALL???
Like...
"Mother; I have learned that PRESBYTERIANiusm is not true."
.