Abdullah of London and the Council of Nicea

Once again this morning I had the opportunity of listening to an Islamic presentation while I was writing.

Ironically, what I listened to was a video, a friend of mine from Liberty University, not who you're thinking, converted one of Abdullah of London's videos into MP3 format, and since Abdullah uses a lot of text on the screen, he actually took the time to read what was on the screen, so that once again

I could use the many hours that I spend road riding as time of study, and it is an excellent time of study indeed.

Anyway, as I listened to it, I once again was just so struck with the difference between the approach that we at Alpha Omega Ministries attempt to take in speaking the truth in love and in showing honor to those even with whom we disagree by speaking the truth, by being consistent, by being accurate, by at least striving for it.

We may not be perfect, we are fallen human beings and we have our biases and prejudices too, and sometimes we just get our facts wrong, but we try, we seek to utilize the best information that we can find, things like that.

Well, as I was listening, the subject of the Council of Nicaea came up, and a number of years ago

I wrote an article for the CRI Journal, What Really Happened at the Council of Nicaea, and I have heard many

Muslims come up with just amazing assertions about what allegedly took place at the

Council of Nicaea. Now back on June 19th on my blog, one of my fellow bloggers, a

Turretin fan, wrote an article about this very video that I'm going to be responding to here and showing you a major portion of.

And so if you'd like to have a written response, you can go to the June 19th entry on the

Prosepolis Guillaume blog at aomin .org, and then you'll have the quotations and citations that are found there.

And in fact, on some issues might go into more depth than I will in this video response. But I wanted to play a major portion of what was presented.

There is one portion here, unfortunately, well, the entire video is filled with mockery.

And so I apologize to my Christian friends who might be offended by what they see, but I think it helps to recognize that when it's really untruth, it's untrue, it doesn't have any validity to it, that makes it a little bit easier to watch.

But again, I don't think this is how we should approach interfaith dialogue to begin with.

And I would hope for better from Abdullah and his friends, Isa and others that are involved with him.

So I want to play a section and then I will start to respond back and forth as I present this video.

By the fourth century, it became necessary for the church to decide which of the many

Gospels that are in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up during the famous Council of Nicaea.

I've said it before, I'll have to say it again. The Council of Nicaea did not address the issue of the canon of the scripture.

There is not a single shred of contemporary or meaningful historical information to substantiate the assertion that the

Council of Nicaea addressed the issue of the canon. None.

Zero. Zip and zilch. The only sources that these gentlemen are going to use, they stole from the

Theosophists of the 19th century. They do not use any contemporary historical information.

They don't quote Eusebius. They don't quote anyone that has any meaningful connection to the

Council of Nicaea whatsoever. If we treated the

Islamic sources the way that Abdullah of London and Isa and his friends address the

Council of Nicaea here, they would have every good reason to reject everything we have to say concerning their religion.

So why do they feel that they have the right to engage in this kind of activity?

I cannot begin to understand it, but once again, I call upon Abdullah, come up to a higher standard.

Pull this kind of information. It is just so bad, it's just so wrong historically speaking, that anyone who says they honour the truth should not engage in this kind of rhetoric.

The Council of Nicaea was convened around 325 AD to settle the growing dispute about the nature of Jesus.

The Roman Emperor Constantine conveyed this council to solve a problem that was threatening to rip

Christianity apart. Although the Emperor was pagan, he needed a new gimmick to unite the

Roman Empire from being fractured and from splintering apart. Christianity seemed to be the ideal solution.

But the only problem was that Christianity in its pure monotheistic form was totally different to pagan

Roman religions that the citizens of Rome were used to. So it was in his interests to foresee the creation of a more

Romanised Christianity that would appeal to Roman citizens and at the same time unite them behind one common religion and would unite them politically in one common identity.

A few bishops and a significant majority of the Christian public believed Jesus to be purely human and a prophet of God.

Okay, a couple of problems with this. There's no question about the political motivations of Constantine at this point.

But the idea that he wanted to somehow change Christianity is a far leap from the recognition of the political nature of the beast.

The idea that he wanted to create some new Christianity is, again, pure speculation without any type of meaningful historical foundation.

Beyond this, we are just now told that some bishops and the majority of the people believed

Jesus was merely a human prophet. This is pure absurdity.

Not even the Arians believed that. The Arians believed that Jesus was the son of God.

They believed that he was divine. But they differentiated between Jesus and God on the level of being in the sense of denying that his divinity was of the same nature as the

Father's. He is a great creation and a divine being in that sense.

He is not a mere rasul. This is pure Islamic wishful thinking read back into the history without the slightest bit of concern for context or truthfulness.

I would challenge Abdullah and his friends, document this. Show it to us. It's interesting, just recently, a fresco was discovered, a mosaic was discovered in Megiddo.

It may be one of the earliest Christian churches founded long before the Council of Nicaea. And on the floor, you have the specific reference to Jesus Christ as God in the exact same words.

That Ignatius uses in his epistles back in 107 AD. So the idea that this was a minority viewpoint or something like that, again, pure wishful thinking stands completely against all of the documentation that serious individuals would be taking into account if they were seriously trying to address the subject of early

Christian belief. But the other bishops, like Athanasius, believed

Jesus was divine. Simple factual error.

Athanasius was not a bishop at the Council of Nicaea. Alexander of Alexandria was the bishop that represented

Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius was there, but he was merely a deacon.

He was an assistant to Alexander. And it is pure supposition as to what

Athanasius' role at the Council actually was. There is no real evidence, contemporaneous evidence, of him taking a leading position or anything like that.

But factual error here. Athanasius was not a bishop at the time of the

Council of Nicaea. Fortunately, the two testimonies of eyewitnesses of the event have been preserved.

So there can be little doubt as to the method used during that event in the selection of the

Gospels. There were 318 bishops present in this Council. And one of the two eyewitnesses,

Savinus, bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capabilities.

With the exception of the emperor and Eusebius Paphylus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.

Yet, it was this Council of illiterate, simple -minded creatures who decided the fate of Christian doctrine for the next 1700 years.

And in the end, they submitted the issue of Jesus' divinity to a vote. After much pressuring from Athanasius, the pro -divinity group won by majority vote.

Once again, pure historical fiction being presented as if it was fact.

Once again, there is no contemporaneous evidence that Athanasius was putting pressure on anyone at all.

There is no evidence that Savinus was an eyewitness. In fact, if some of the information is correct, he flourished around 425, which would mean he was maybe a baby at that point in time, at best.

His writings are from 375. So there is no evidence that he actually was at all at the

Council of Nicaea. He was not an eyewitness. If you think he was, prove it. And furthermore, even his very biased history that comes from many years after the

Council was criticized heavily at the time that it was actually written by his contemporaries because of its bias and its inaccuracy.

And so to take his dislike of these council fathers and to expand that into some kind of an established demonstration that everyone at the

Council of Nicaea were a bunch of illiterates is again not only ridiculous, but it's also extremely offensive.

If someone did this about the companions of Muhammad, people would be dying in the streets.

But Muslims seem to be able to use singular sources, ignore the contemporaneous sources, and think they can get away with it.

The reality is that many of these bishops came to the Council of Nicaea bearing the scars that they had earned as people who had suffered for the name of Christ.

Because serious students of history, those who actually are concerned about truth, know the fact that it had only been 12 years since the

Peace of the Church in 313. That meant that there had, up until 313, been the most severe imperial persecution of Christians.

The worst persecution of Christians was at the very end of the period of imperial persecution, beginning with Nero, and then becoming very heavy from 250 -260 until the

Peace of the Church in 313. There were men at that council missing limbs, bearing scars from the torture that they endured for their faith in Christ.

The idea that these men were a bunch of illiterates is not only offensive, it's simply foolish.

No serious person dealing with truth would make these kinds of statements. What is more, the idea that someone could force upon them a religion that they had never even thought of before, when they would not renounce

Christ at the tip of a sword, only 12 or 15 years earlier, is likewise utterly absurd.

It destroys the credibility of people to use this kind of argumentation.

I don't know why they don't see that. It certainly, for me, convinces me that these individuals are not trying to convert me.

They're not interested in my coming to know anything about Islam, because you don't misrepresent someone else's faith and the history of someone else's faith in the process of trying to bring them to the truth.

And so this kind of rhetoric, this kind of mockery which we're about to see, as founded, as we have now seen, upon so much falsehood, such simple error of fact, again reflects,

I think, greatly upon the nature of Islamic apologetics today.

Once again, I apologize for that, but I think we need to understand exactly how Muslims think the deity of Christ is defined and defended.

I've written an entire book on the doctrines of the Trinity, presented a great deal of biblical evidence on that particular subject, have defended that a number of times, of course, and so a serious

Christian looks at this and is simply offended, doesn't want anything to do with it. This is Islam. I don't want it.

And again, that makes me wonder why the Muslims produce that kind of stuff. But just another historical fact, there were two of the bishops who didn't sign the creed, and that's not where the belief in the deity of Christ comes from in the first place.

Because if these gentlemen would read a meaningful history of the Christian faith, they would know that for the next more than 40 years, it was the

Aryans who held sway in the Roman Empire. Sometime around 350ish or so,

Jerome, looking back at it, made the commentary that the world woke up and was amazed to find itself

Aryan. Athanasius himself was driven out of his church five times for refusing to give up on his belief in the deity of Christ.

This thing about Paulians and Pauline Christianity, again, to the serious historian, you just go, what are these people talking about?

But Muslims are willing to grab hold of any kind of argumentation.

In an earlier part of this video, a portion of it, a segment, they're citing, not really understanding what they're saying, but they're citing liberals.

Now these same individuals, I'm sure, do not cite Ibn Warraq and atheists or liberals who address the subject of the

Quran. I'm sure that they are not utilizing that kind of information. Once again, the stark reality that the

Muslim wears one garb when speaking of Muhammad and the history of Islam and their sacred text, the

Quran, and then tears that garb off and puts on the garb of the ultra -liberal, the atheist, to address the

New Testament and the history of Christianity. That epistemological schizophrenia is, to me, the greatest evidence of the error, the falsehood of Islam.

I have not met, not yet. Got a number of debates coming up real soon.

Maybe I'll meet one, but I have yet to meet the consistent Muslim.

I have yet to meet the Muslim who remains a Muslim when attacking the

New Testament. Haven't met one. I'll let you know if I do. Although the main issue was to discuss the nature of Christ, the arguments for and against his divinity were based upon the 4 ,200 or so Gospels that the council members brought with them from their respective areas.

4 ,200 Gospels. I don't even know how to start to respond to something like this that is just so far removed from reality.

There is not a single shred of historical evidence, none whatsoever, nothing that could even begin to substantiate such an absurd statement as this, none.

The wildest liberal, the wildest atheist can only look at that kind of claim with stunned shock.

It would be like me saying, well, actually, scholars say that the

Quran was written by 3 ,000 different individuals over the course of 400 years. I'm sorry, but it is extremely difficult to take someone seriously who will, with a straight face, utter something as absurd as this.

And you say, well, absurd is a strong word. Well, when you're making things up on the fly, yes, it's a strong word.

Even in just a moment he's going to say that they submitted 40 Gospels to the council. The council of Nicaea said and did nothing about the canon.

There is no evidence for any of this. It's all lies. Prove it.

Show us documentation. Go to meaningful sources. Not theosophists who get seances in the 19th century.

That's not history, folks. Prove it. Document it. This is called documentation.

Here is the text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts. Here you will find the text of each of the papyri manuscripts.

This is called documentation. This is the serious stuff. Let me show you something else.

I'm not even going to move the camera. Here. This is what's called documentation.

Okay? See that? This is a facsimile. Costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

Of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran. From Paris, from London. This is called getting documentation.

Doing things seriously. Making things up on the fly.

Finding absurd stuff from somebody on drugs on the internet.

Is not serious discussion about religious issues.

It shows no respect, gentlemen. For those you are seeking to try to bring into Islam.

To post this kind of information. None. There were not 40 Gospels submitted to Council of Nicaea.

They did not bring 4200 Gospels with them. This is all absurdity. On the highest level.

And those interested in truth should, if they're consistent. Remove this kind of information.

Other Muslims who are concerned should write to them. And suggest they check their facts.

And if they can't back it up, they need to withdraw it. That kind of claim is so absurd.

It would have to be withdrawn. So the issue over which

Gospels are fully authentic. And which are not. Had to be dealt with there and then. In order for an agreement to be reached.

On which is to be used as a source for argumentation. About 40

Gospels were submitted to these bishops in total. As they differed widely in their contents.

The decision was very difficult as to which one to choose. At last it was determined to resort to divine intervention.

The method used was known as a Sortes Sanctorum. Or the holy casting of lots for the purposes of divination.

It's use in the Council of Nicaea. Was described by another eyewitness. In his book the

Stenoticon to the Council of Nicaea. He says. Having promiscuously put all the

Gospels referred to the Council for determination. Under the communion table in a church. They besought the

Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table. While the spurious ones remained underneath.

And it happened accordingly. So then when the church fathers came back the next morning.

They found 4 Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. On the table. Funnily enough no one ever asked.

If there happened to be a spare key to that chamber. But I guess we'll never know. I mean there has to be some reason.

Those Gospels got on the table. I mean they couldn't have just teleported there or something. The case is that the church was practicing divination to pick it's word of God.

And I'm so happy for that reason. Because I know therefore I can trust it. I can trust the 27 books that are there.

More than that we know that when they were chosen they were chosen for a purpose. I trust them. I hope you do as well.

This is Jay. History is funny isn't it. What mundane Christians swear by.

Testify to. And even kill for. Was in reality just a bunch of books selected using under the table shenanigans.

Which I find that very hypocritical. Because the church condemned thousands of unfortunate victims.

As conjurers, enchanters, magicians, witches and in league with demons.

Those who practiced divination. And burned them by the thousands. Well you have to give the young men some credit for imagination.

But given that they are willing to mock the Christian faith. Based upon their research.

Notice that they said there were two eyewitnesses. Sebenus which we have discovered there is no evidence that he was.

And that if he was he would have been like a baby. And lived over a hundred. And then we have this

Pappas. Who gives us this story. Again by the way. You'll find this in theosophist writings of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Which seems to be exactly where they stole it from. But Pappas is an eyewitness.

Well that's interesting. Because if they had taken the time to check their sources. Which clearly they did not.

They would find out that Pappas' book that they are quoting from. Actually contains material about numerous councils.

In fact the last council it contains information about. Was from just before the year 900.

Which would mean that Pappas would have lived to about 600 years of age.

That makes about as much sense as my saying. John Calvin was there when the Quran was revealed.

Yeah it's about the same problem there. This kind of utter absurdity.

Presented as if it's fact. Is just simply reprehensible.

There is no reason to do this kind of thing. I certainly hope that Abdullah and Isa and his friends don't really believe this stuff.

Do you? I mean this is just so fantastic.

So ahistorical. So ridiculous. That it's really hard to believe that this isn't being presented as a joke.

As something that's just meant to make us all chuckle. And if that was somewhere on the website.

I'm sorry if I missed it. But I don't think it's there. I think these young men are demonstrating.

That many Muslims today are willing to grab hold of anything. No matter how outrageous it is.

And how completely outside the realm of anything. They'd accept about their own religion.

I mean look at what has happened here. This kind of stuff is put on YouTube. And no one complains.

In a debate I mention an Islamic tradition. About Ibn Masud's death.

By being beaten for not giving up his Quran. And all of a sudden I'm a terrible horrible deceiver.

You put stuff on YouTube. That is absolutely beyond absurd.

And all is well. Double standard. Hypocrisy.

What does that say about our relative positions? What does that say about truth?

I hope you'll think about these things. And I would invite Abdullah and Isa and his friends.

To withdraw those videos that have been demonstrated. To simply be based upon pure fiction.

Absolute fiction. That has no connection whatsoever with reality.