Dedicated to co-founders and beginners - page 9
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Did I understand correctly that you have nothing to say on the essence of the questions?
Don't get cocky.
>> you want to attribute the Nicene Council quote to me?
------------------------------
The main reason for convening the Council of Nicaea was the dispute between Bishop Alexander and Arius. Arius, like the Gnostics, denied the divinity of Christ. For Arius, Christ was not God, but the first and most perfect of God's creatures. Arius had many accomplices. Bishop Alexander accused Arius of blasphemy.
Emperor Constantine intervened in the dispute, thinking that his presence and authority could save the church from internal strife. Constantine wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius condemning their dispute over futile matters. It seems that it made no difference to Constantine whether Christ was God or the first of God's created beings. Otherwise he would not have called the argument futile. Constantine sent Bishop Hosius to Egypt with a special commission to eliminate the dispute. But Alexander and Arius refused to listen to Hosius' exhortations. Constantine then decided to get to the heart of the dispute. He decided to convene a meeting of all the bishops of the Roman Empire. In June 325 the First Ecumenical Council convened in the city of Nicaea in Bithynia, with 380 bishops in attendance, along with many presbyters and deacons. Many of them had only recently returned from penal servitude and bore the marks of torture on their bodies. And now they were assembled in the palace at Nicaea, and the emperor Constantine himself presided over their assembly, which had never been done before. This fact shows the total subordination of the Christian church to the Roman emperor.
The council lasted more than two months, and Constantine attended most of the proceedings, and was personally acquainted with many bishops who came from literally all parts of the Roman Empire. The young deacon Athanasius, who soon became a bishop, drew everyone's attention. After the speech of Arius, who had been summoned to the council, Athanasius took the floor. His speech was in the power of the Holy Spirit. Relying only on the Word of God, Athanasius vividly and convincingly proved the heresy of Arius. The whole council was filled with deep respect for the hitherto little-known deacon Athanasius. A short creed was drawn up at the council, in which it was emphasised that God is one in three persons. This so-called "Nicene Creed" was signed by all the assembled bishops, with the exception of a few Aryans. The Emperor Constantine, too, approved of the Council's decision, and declared that he would exile all those who did not comply with it. As soon as the Arians heard about it they hastened to put their signature under the creed. Only two bishops, Secundus and Theonas, of Egyptian origin, continued to stand up with Arius for his views. All three were exiled to Illyria by order of Constantine.
well...
The topic "Coryphaei and beginners dedicated" ends with a discussion on the reincarnation of souls)))
come on.
>> just about everything, we're discussing power
we're drawing a parallel between the roman empire and the u.s.a.
Don't get cocky.
>> you want to attribute the Nicene Council quote to me?
It is not quite clear what you wanted to say with that quote. From it exactly follows the thesis which I have sounded earlier that there was no talk about reincarnation of souls on the Council of Nicaea, but there was a showdown with Arius. You also did not give the names of early Christian works from which it would follow that Christ is not God. What was it you wanted to say?
It is not quite clear what you mean by this quote. From it follows my earlier statement that there was no discussion of reincarnation of souls at the Council of Nicaea, but a showdown with Arius. You also did not give the names of early Christian works from which it would follow that Christ is not God. What was it you wanted to say?
What's not clear... a forum member posted a link to a refutation of the film Zeitgeist.
To be fair I wrote that the truth is in the middle and that the authorities use religion to their own ends
Concerning the old-Christian doctrines there is a NESTORIANITY, one of the 5 major areas of Christianity.
-----------
In South India the first Christians appeared as early as the first century A.D. All Indian Christians can be divided into two main groups. The first of these groups includes the descendants of the ancient Christian population of India, who once adhered to the Nestorian creed. With the invasion of India by the Portuguese colonialists, the latter forcibly imposed Catholicism. As a result, the Syro-Malabar Church was formed, which recognised the tenets of Catholicism but retained its rituals. The formation of the second group of Christians is linked to the activities of European missionaries.
----------
In 431 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus Nestorius was anathematized, his doctrine condemned and then cursed in 449 (the Ephesian Robbery).
Most of the Nestorians went to Persia and joined the Church of the East, which also adhered to the Antiochian theological tradition.
What is not clear.
It is not clear how all of the above confirms your theses: (1) - An important part of the Doctrine itself was removed from the Council of Nicaea in 325 - the reincarnation of the Soul. That is why the "western religions" are so different from the "eastern religions" - Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. - in which this idea is retained.
and (2) - Christ himself was decided to be considered God, even though the old Christian sources said he was the incarnate Spirit.
Apparently, no one.
Regarding the old Christian teachings there is such a NESTORIANITY, one of the 5 mainstreams of Christianity.
It was not about doctrines, it was about sources. Can you tell the difference?
Nestorius didn't use any other sources (the New Testament canon was compiled much earlier), he only interpreted the generally accepted Gospels in his own way, supplementing them with antique philosophy. So - again, not in the same way.
I wanted to ask you, Xadviser, about one indicator. In this illustration there is a price channel with an amplitude of (approximately) 60 pips. Is it your indicator or did you read about it somewhere? I am "purely interested in sport" :) The thing is, I used it myself(here it is 3 instances on the chart), but I haven't found its description in literature, though the need in it appeared by itself (when I was looking at the rates I came to conclusion, that it fluctuates in corridors) and it was useful till mid September.
A variant of ZigZag without its segments, just the corridor. Needed?
As for the corridor, I recommend to look at the Trend and Flat
Is practice the criterion for theory?
Entry by Indices
It is not clear how all of the above confirms your theses: (1) - An important part of the Doctrine itself was removed from the Council of Nicaea in 325 - the reincarnation of the Soul. That is why the "western religions" are so different from the "eastern religions" - Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. - in which this thought is retained.
And (2) - Christ himself was decided to be considered God, even though the old Christian sources said he was the incarnate Spirit.
Apparently, no one.
It was not a question of doctrines, but of sources. Can you feel the difference?
Nestorius didn't use any other sources (the New Testament canon was drawn up much earlier), he just interpreted the generally accepted Gospels in his own way, supplementing them with ancient philosophy. So - again, no.
Prove to the contrary that nothing was taken away at the council, I have no confidence in those who used violence...
At the Council of Nicaea in 325, to please the dogma of Jesus' divinity, the canon of sacred scripture was made without books such as the "Gospel of Mary", which speaks of Mary Magdalene's great role in Jesus' ministry. And he himself appears less as the "Son of God" than as a spiritual teacher and mentor on the path of self-development.