⑴ 復活節的來歷，習俗。
復活節的來歷
http://ke..com/view/1462.htm
復活節小兔子、彩蛋。
http://xmlpart.blog.163.com/blog/static/1050875202008111982034504/
⑵ 誰有柯南里復活節之卵圖片
俄羅斯彩蛋
俄羅斯珠寶有比較悠久的歷史，比如一個名叫法貝熱的天才俄國金匠創造了令人目眩神迷的沙皇彩蛋，他用自己的巧思將原來平凡的彩蛋變成了一個華麗的傳奇。
我以前看過一篇關於彩蛋的文章，覺得這個挺神奇的。我記得世界上有50來個彩蛋，最後一個蛋還有什麼故事來的。
你在網路圖片上輸「俄羅斯彩蛋」會有很多，而且都很精緻。
⑶ 跪求好心人分享黑色復活節2021年上映的由 Jordyn主演的免費高清百度雲資源
《黑色復活節 2021》網路網盤高清資源免費在線觀看
鏈接: https://pan..com/s/1es07jWVaS7Ql3CJNgkPRZQ
《黑色復活節BlackEaster》
導演:JimCarroll
主演:Jordyn、Barrera、Christina、瑪麗·伯德桑、唐尼·波阿斯
類型:動作、冒險
製片國家/地區:美國
語言:英語
上映日期:2021-06-06(美國)
片長:114分鍾
拉姆·戈德斯坦(RamGoldstein)和三位世界頂級天才受委託與其他精英科學家競爭，以創造第一台物質轉移機器。艾哈邁德·阿米爾（AhmedAmir）正在他的技術學院資助該計劃。在設計該項目時，拉姆發現了時間旅行。然而，他也發現該研究所是一個極端恐怖組織的盾牌，意圖將這項技術用作武器。拉姆的朋友被扣為人質，他被迫完成機器。與此同時，艾哈邁德計劃回到過去殺死耶穌並阻止復活。在拉姆逃跑之前，艾哈邁德劫持了機器並派出了一支由布蘭特率領的軍隊去殺死耶穌。他們的干涉導致所有的地獄都崩潰了，人類陷入了世界末日。
⑷ 逆戰見過獵場（黑暗復活節）上這種女僵屍嗎
見過，樓主我有圖如下
然後
顯然她有點生氣
⑸ 逆戰黑暗復活節兔女郎圖片
附高清兔女郎圖片
⑹ 復活節島在圖中的什麼位置（請用圖片回答）
復活節島位於東南太平洋上，在南緯27度和西經109°交會點附近，面積約117平方公里，現屬智利共和國的瓦爾帕萊索地區。
最早登上該島的歐洲人是荷蘭人，他們為該島取名「帕賽蘭」（Paaseiland，意即「復活島」，以紀念他們到達的日子。
島上居民混雜，以玻里尼西亞裔為主，幾乎全居住在有屏障的西海岸的安加羅阿（Hanga Roa）村莊中，人口3,304（2002）。
(6)復活節高清圖片擴展閱讀：
地形特徵：
島上聳立多座火山丘，最高點海拔601米。地面崎嶇不平，覆蓋深厚凝灰岩。島上的地貌大多是平滑的小山丘、草原和火山。島上的海灘上多是岩石，懸崖峭壁遍地都是，海灣上沒有人看守。島上只有三個海灘，沙子非常干凈。
東北部高出，面對著波利尼西亞小島群。西南部地勢平緩，與智利西海岸相距3700公里，遙遙相對。三角形的每個角上各有一座火山。左邊角上是拉諾考火山。右邊是拉諾拉拉科火山，這座火山的斜坡上有島上最大的巨型石像群。北方角上是拉諾阿魯火山，它與特雷瓦卡山相鄰。
⑺ 無意看到恐怖血腥的圖片（就那個百度知道里發復活節兔子圖片的）了，心情有點不好，求治癒系美圖，緩和一
⑻ 復活節的介紹(英文)和圖片(最好是卡通的)
ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council. (Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)
When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your ty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our ty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.
EXCURSUS ON THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE EASTER QUESTION
. (Hefele: Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I., pp. 328 et seqq.)
The differences in the way of fixing the period of Easter did not indeed disappear after the Council of Nicea. Alexandria and Rome could not agree, either because one of the two Churches neglected to make the calculation for Easter, or because the other considered it inaccurate. It is a fact, proved by the ancient Easter table of the Roman Church, that the cycle of eighty-four years continued to be used at Rome as before. Now this cycle differed in many ways from the Alexandrian, and did not always agree with it about the period for Easter--in fact(a), the Romans used quite another method from the Alexandrians; they calculated from the epact, and began from the feria prima of January.(b.) The Romans were mistaken in placing the full moon a little too soon; whilst the Alexandrians placed it a little too late.(c.) At Rome the equinox was supposed to fall on March 18th; whilst the Alexandrians placed it on March 21st.(d.) Finally, the Romans differed in this from the Greeks also; they did not celebrate Easter the next day when the full moon fell on the Saturday.
Even the year following the Council of Nicea--that is, in 326--as well as in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, the Latins celebrated Easter on a different day from the Alexandrians. In order to put an end to this misunderstanding, the Synod of Sardica in 343, as we learn from the newly discovered festival letters of S. Athanasius, took up again the question of Easter, and brought the two parties(Alexandrians and Romans) to regulate, by means of mutual concessions, a common day for Easter for the next fifty years. This compromise, after a few years, was not observed. The troubles excited by the Arian heresy, and the division which it caused between the East and the West, prevented the decree of Sardica from being put into execution; therefore the Emperor Theodosius the Great, after the re-establishment of peace in the Church, found himself obliged to take fresh steps for obtaining a complete uniformity in the manner of celebrating Easter. In 387, the Romans having kept Easter on March 21st, the Alexandrians did not do so for five weeks later--that is to say, till April 25th--because with the Alexandrians the equinox was not till March 21st. The Emperor Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria for an explanation of the difference. The bishop responded to the Emperor's desire, and drew up a chronological table of the Easter festivals, based upon the principles acknowledged by the Church of Alexandria. Unfortunately, we now possess only the prologue of his work.
Upon an invitation from Rome, S. Ambrose also mentioned the period of this same Easter in 387, in his letter to the bishops of AEmilia, and he sides with the Alexandrian computation. Cyril of Alexandria abridged the paschal table of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time for the ninety-five following Easters--that is, from 436 to 531 after Christ. Besides this Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was defective in the Latin calculation; and this demonstration was taken up again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by them to Pope Leo I. In consequence of these communications, Pope Leo often gave the preference to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church of Rome. At the same time also was generally established, the opinion so little entertained by the ancient authorities of the Church--one might even say, so strongly in contradiction to their teaching--that Christ partook of the passover on the 14th Nisan, that he died on the 15th(not on the 14th, as the ancients considered), that he lay in the grave on the 16th, and rose again on the 17th. In the letter we have just mentioned, Proterius of Alexandria openly admitted all these different points.
Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitane, by order of the Roman Archdeacon Hilary, endeavoured to make the Roman and the Alexandrian calculations agree together. It has been conjectured that subsequently Hilary, when Pope, brought Victor's calculation into use, in 456--that is, at the time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to an end. In the latter cycle the new moons were marked more accurately, and the chief differences existing between the Latin and Greek calculations disappeared; so that the Easter of the Latins generally coincided with that of Alexandria, or was only a very little removed from it. In cases when the id fell on a Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should be celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should be postponed for a week. He indicates both dates in his table, and leaves the Pope to decide what was to be done in each separate case. Even after Victor's calculations, there still remained great differences in the manner of fixing the celebration of Easter; and it was Dionysius the Less who first completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a paschal table having as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This cycle perfectly corresponded to that of Alexandria, and thus established that harmony which had been so long sought in vain. He showed the advantages of his calculation so strongly, that it was admitted by Rome and by the whole of Italy; whilst almost the whole of Gaul remained faithful to Victor's canon, and Great Britain still held the 'cycle of eighty-four years, a little improved by Sulpicius Severus. When the Heptarchy was evangelized by the Roman missionaries, the new converts accepted the calculation of Dionysius, whilst the ancient Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. From this arose the well-known British dissensions about the celebration of Easter, which were transplanted by Columban into Gaul. In 729, the majority of the ancient British Churches accepted the cycle of nineteen years. It had before been introced into Spain, immediately after the conversion of Reccared. Finally, under Charles the Great, the cycle of nineteen years triumphed over all opposition; and thus the whole of Christendom was united, for the Quartodecimans had graally disappeared.(1)
selected from Henry R. Percival, ed.,The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988) , pp. 54-56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and -permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is right. Permission is granted for electronic ing, distribution in print form for ecational purposes and personal use. If you do replicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use