From: EW

To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:23 PM

Subject: Re: GUESS WHAT? BELLRINGER GOT IT ALL WRONG!

From: BW

To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:44 PM

Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

From:CD

To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:50 PM

Subject: 'HELLO, CENTRAL! GUESS WHAT? BELLRINGER GOT IT ALL WRONG!

 

----- Original Message -----

 

----- Original Message -----

From: T

To: Patrick Bellringer

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:41 PM

Subject: BELLRINGER GOT IT ALL WRONG! (Updated Feb.24, 2009)

 

Subject: Brian Ellsworth

"Dear Fourwinders,

I simply believe in the Gospel Truth. I consider the Internet a witness to that Truth---maybe the only form of Truth Communication left on Earth."

Is there only one gospel truth? How do you know the truth, when you are believing the hype? I don't mean this in a negative way. What I'm saying is that there is not one single religion on this 3D planet that has gotten it right. And you are claiming you 'believe' the Bible!!!

You sound like you are a smart person, someone who is really trying to understand what is really going on. So give yourself a break. Ok? You admitted that you aren't always right. So consider this.

There is just as much potential on the Internet to spread all the negatively based things as well. So you need to think carefully before you consider something to be the truth. After all, this is 3D, and many things that are evil can be made to appear good.

Sugar is a prime example, if we were to use something pretty generic as an example. People have been using it for years, they love it, it makes things taste good. They have gotten so used to using it, tasting it, giving it to their kids, that most of them can't even imagine a life without sugar in it. And the artificial sweeteners, they are no good either. Splenda was made from rat poison. But they put it out there every day, selling it to us, letting us consume poison! There is a book, called Sugar Blues on the market, has been for years. In the book, it says that one of our President and other people were killed, because he wanted to go public about the truth about sugar. Doctors said that if we were to test sugar, like we do any new thing on the market, for safety, that people would find out that sugar kills, it is worse than cocaine. But they won't test it, because they make way too much money on sugar.

Raise your hands. How many people out there still consume sugar? How many of their kids consume it in school every day? How many go out to eat and consume it every day??? You cannot get away from having sugar forced into your life. If you said yes to even one question, you are killing yourself slowly.

Grocery stores have thousands of prepared meals with sugar in them. The only way to get away from it is to buy only FRESH FOODS. Because they shove it into everything, because they know people need sugar, they love it. Things sell that have sugar in them. And that is the bottom line. They want to make money. There is no limit to their greed.

And that is just about sugar!!!

It's the same deal with MSG, Monosodium Glutamate, and all its 30 or so other names. They put it in everything to make you addicted to their food. So you buy more of their food. Campbell's is an expert drug pusher, they put it in everything they produce, have for years. Don't believe the ads telling you they removed it from their soups. They left the ingredient in, changing its name. These guy are smart at deceiving us. They know the public are rather gullible, and will keep on buying their stuff, because it is Mmmm Mmmm Good. I grew up on that poison!!! I loved their soups. Now I won't touch it.

But do you see what I mean? So long as we live in a society that lets those people do this and make money, they will continue to poison us. It all comes down to their greed.

So, do you really trust those same greedy bastards who wrote the 'Holy Bible' to actually tell the truth??? I mean, get serious!!! Reincarnation is real, they have been here centuries, doing the same games. They don't want to give up their power, the money, their control over us, the sheeple. That's what they call us, you know, we are the peeons!! They ignorant public. People too stupid to know what they are doing to us. We believe everything they tell us to believe.

AND IT IS ALL BS!!!

So if you are thinking the Bible is truth, you are sheeple. Wake up and smell the manure!! There is nothing holy about that book. The men that wrote it, then altered it, in Nicea. Read up.

*******

First Council of Nicaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Council of Nicaea
Date	325 AD
Accepted by	Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism
Previous council	none considered ecumenical
Next council	First Council of Constantinople
Convoked by	Constantine I
Presided by	St. Alexander of Alexandria
Attendance	250-318 (only five from Western Church)
Topics of discussion	Arianism, celebration of Passover (Easter), Miletian schism, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians
Documents and statements	Original Nicene Creed and about 20 decrees
Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The First Council of Nicea was convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day Ä°znik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 CE. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. ^[1]

Contents [hide] 1 Overview 2 Character and purpose 3 Attendees 4 Agenda and procedure 5 Arian controversy 6 The Nicene Creed 7 Separation of Easter from Jewish Passover 8 Meletian Schism 9 Other problems 10 Effects of the Council 11 References 12 Bibliography 12.1 Primary sources 12.2 Literature 13 External links

[edit] Overview

The First Council of Nicea is believed to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church to include the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Old Catholic, and a number of other Western Christian groups. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. 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.

Derived from Koine 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^[2] around 338 "σÏ�νοδον οá¼°κουμενικá½´ν συνεκρÏŒτει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369,^[3] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.^[4]

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 of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. 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^[5]).

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.^[1] , the Council was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology.^[1] 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

The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba 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.^[6] 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 Nicaea (now known as Ä°znik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of them, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

Approximately 250 to 318 bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain. Of the bishops whose successors would much later be termed Patriarchs (see Pentarchy), Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem attended, and Sylvester I, Bishop of Rome, sent legates. Constantinople had not yet been founded. Another participant was the first church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea. Athanasius of Alexandria, famous for his battles against Arianism, was also present, but was then only a deacon.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.^[7] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”^[8] The writings and teachings of early church fathers presented even greater challenges for the Church in defining exactly what was considered the heretical theology prior to the First Council of Nicaea. Early Christian apologist Justin Martyr clearly presented his earlier teachings on the logos (Jesus relationship to Father) in the Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogue with Trypho, 56). The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.

[edit] Attendees

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a lesser and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250,^[9] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,^[10] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270^[11] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,^[12] and Evagrius,^[13] Hilarius,^[14] Jerome^[15] and Rufinus recorded 318.

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 would have been above 1,500. 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 February 313 Edict of Milan 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. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea; Nicholas of Myra; 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; Athanasius of Thessaly^[16] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Egrisi (located at the border of modern-day Russia and Georgia outside of the Roman Empire).

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,^[16] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Silvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but he was represented by two priests.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among these 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.^[16]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,^[17] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.^[18][16]

"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."^[7] 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."^[19] He was present as an observer, but he did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. "Ossius [Hosius] presided over its deliberations; he probably, and the two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope."^[7] “Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address."^[7][20]

[edit] Agenda and procedure

The agenda of the synod were:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;
2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3. The Meletian schism;
4. The validity of baptism by heretics;
5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on 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."^[7] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in 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 this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.

In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. 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."^[8] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.

[edit] Arian controversy

Main articles: Arianism and Arian controversy

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. 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.^[21]

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.

[edit] The Nicene Creed

Main article: Nicene Creed

By and large, many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council. From his perspective, even Arius could cite such a 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," confirming 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. Some ascribe the term 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. 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 Nicaea, 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.

Part of a series on the Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church
Councils in Antiquity
Nicaea I • Constantinople I Ephesus  • Chalcedon Constantinople II Constantinople III • Nicaea II Constantinople IV
Papal Councils during the Middle Ages
Lateran I  • Lateran II Lateran III  • Lateran IV Lyon I  • Lyon II  • Vienne
Councilarism
Constance  • Basel • Lateran V
Modern Councils
Council of Trent Vatican I • Vatican II
General Articles Vatican II and beyond Roman Catholic Church History of the Roman Catholic Church History of the Papacy
Catholicism Portal

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 refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames.^[22] Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.

 

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

 

*********

If you want to read the rest, go to Wikipedia. I didn't want to put the whole mess in here.

Basically, in a nutshell, it's a bunch of old men telling you how to live, taking all your rights away from you. They wanted to control the people, by telling them the Bible was the word of God.

The word of God is love.

T