Constantine and Nicea...Again

Okay, real quick video here. I haven't done this for a little while, and this is a perfect opportunity to do it.

Again, educational type situation here. I've often, since 2006, in talking about Islam, mentioned

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, now Dr. Yasir Qadhi. Dr. Qadhi has been very kind to me.

He sent me a 16 -CD set that he did, Light and Guidance, which I found to be extremely helpful as an introduction to Islamic beliefs.

I've mentioned that his pronunciation of Arabic was very helpful to me.

So I've just found, as a Muslim cleric, as an

American Muslim cleric, that he's just been extremely useful in studying and understanding that perspective, that particular stream of Islamic thought.

And especially on the subject, his emphasis upon Tawhid, very important, defining shirk and things like that, very, very important in my studies over the years.

And I've very much appreciated his striving for consistency and his willingness to say things that would not necessarily be popular amongst less thoughtful elements of Islam.

I see a lot of parallels because, as most of you know, I say a lot of things that are not very popular amongst the less thoughtful elements of Christianity.

So I see a kinship there. Anyway, I was pointed to a recent talk that he gave on the subject of ISIS and things like that.

I'm not talking about that in this video. I hope to report on that next week on The Dividing Line. And when

I did that, someone then directed me to another recent talk where there was a discussion of, well, the

Council of Nicaea. And, well, I just barely got that in time, didn't I? This is a live video.

How did I know it was coming? I mean, I managed to silence that right as the ring was starting. I don't think I've ever done that before. It's pretty good.

I'm not stopping this because it's a live video. Anyhow, it was a discussion on the

Council of Nicaea and the canon of scripture. And I'm hoping that Dr.

Khadi will watch this and will look into this subject because what he did is he repeated a statement that I have heard so many

Muslims make. And I think it's just one of those situations where you get a meme going to use internet language in a particular community and it just gets repeated so often that it's taken for granted.

And that is he talks about the canon of scripture and allegedly Constantine's role in getting rid of all other gospels except Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Now, I'm not some famous church historian. I've taught church history on a graduate level a number of times, but I'm not some famous church historian.

But if you look at any serious church historian, Christian or non, on the subject of the

Council of Nicaea, there's one universally accepted fact. The Council of Nicaea did not address the canon of scripture in any way, shape, or form.

Constantine had nothing to do with the canon of scripture, had nothing to do with selection of gospels.

It's just a completely untrue, very often repeated, but untrue statement.

And it comes from the internet. It comes from the fact that this person quotes that person, and he quotes that person, and it just gets repeated over and over again.

It takes on a life of its own, even though if you go to any meaningful original sources, there is not a shred of evidence that the

Council of Nicaea had anything to do with throwing out the Gospel of Thomas or something like that.

Now, there's more in this that I may address later on, because it's fascinating that Dr.

Kadi addresses the fact that the Quran contains stories that are found only in later semi -Gnostic and Gnostic gospels.

That were well -known amongst the Christians. Now, he says they wouldn't have been known amongst the Arabs of Muhammad's time.

I would dispute that very strongly, because the Christians did know that the Arabic Infancy Gospel, which is what contains the story of Jesus speaking from his cradle, was well -known amongst

Arabic Christians, and that would have been the source from which the Quran draws.

I mean, one of my arguments is that the Quran draws from pre -existing sources, and the author of the

Quran did not make any differentiation, did not seem to understand what the nature of the canon of the

New Testament was. That's another issue. Right now, my focus is upon the statement that Constantine had something to do with the canon.

Here's what Yasir Qadhi had to say. And these scrolls contained

Gospels that are beyond the four canonical Gospels. You guys following this?

Of them is a Gospel. Now, you should know that Constantine and others in 325

CE, they basically got rid of all of the other Gospels. There were lots of Gospels.

And Constantine ordered these four to be chosen. Others later after him, besides just Constantine, but later.

And these four became the canonical. All the rest were destroyed. And to this day, most of them are destroyed.

Once in a while, we come across something from the ancient times. This was one of the most significant discoveries in the 1870,

I think. Basically, last 19th century, 150 years ago. Okay. Dr.

Qadhi is a little confused on these issues. He's talking about the Gospel of Thomas. And we have addressed the

Gospel of Thomas so many times before. It is, at its earliest, earliest possible for the

Gospel of Thomas as it exists today, 165 AD, probably a little bit later than that. It is plainly dependent upon the canonical

Gospels. The only Gospels that have any meaningful historical foundation for being first century are

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These other Gospels clearly give evidence of influence from religious movements that are utterly disconnected from the time period of the writing of the

New Testament, the ministry of Jesus. They demonstrate a worldview completely disconnected from what we have in the

New Testament. And in fact, the Gnostic Gospels, and normally when people talk about all these other

Gospels, they're talking about Gnostic Gospels. Muslims should not be looking to Gnostic Gospels.

The Gnostics believed that the creator of this world, that Allah, was a demiurge, an evil god, and that there was another god above the creator of this world.

And you don't want to go for the Gnostics, Dr. Qadhi. You don't want to go there, and you don't want to really go for the

Gospel of Thomas either. But the point specifically was the assertion, once again, often repeated, but utterly untrue historically, that Constantine said, we're going to get these

Gospels and no others. I mean, that's Dan Barker and the Da Vinci Code, but it's not history. And so I would challenge

Dr. Qadhi to look as a researcher who does original research, look at the material that comes from the

Council of Nicaea, look at the contemporary sources. Where does any of this come from? It is a modern myth that has taken on a life of its own because of the

Internet, but it has no meaningful historical foundation whatsoever. It just doesn't work.

In fact, I'd like to highly suggest to you the recent works published by Dr. Michael Kruger. Dr. Kruger is the president of the

Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte. He's written two books recently on the subject of the canon of Scripture.

And I would highly recommend them to you as providing you with cutting -edge, meaningful, believing scholarship on the subject of the canon of Scripture.

And I think they would help a lot in this area. So, once again, appreciate all that I've learned from Dr.

Qadhi. Hope that he can learn something from us on this subject now. Constantine did not determine the canon of the

New Testament, did not have anything to do with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were well -known before this.

They're the only Gospels that have any meaningful foundation in going back to the first century and coming from Tanaitic Judaism, Second Temple Judaism.

None of these other Gospels have any type of pedigree along those lines at all.