Even if we are not on the same page religiously, we shouldn’t hide the truth from each other.
Who Jesus Christ is and who he is not is that thick line that differentiate a Muslim from other adherents of other Abrahamic religions. While no two Muslims have different views about the personality of Jesus Christ, christians often lock horns on who he really is. While some settle on him being the Yahweh himself, others believe he is the son of the father; Yahweh.
Prior to the miraculous birth of Jesus, the Jews were not expecting their God to be born of a woman. Throughout the days Jesus lived among his people, no one ever thought he was God. He himself didn’t say he was God. How he became God is fraudulent, I will prove that in this piece!
About 1600 years ago, the real preaching of Jesus Christ was hijacked and adulterated. Jesus Christ who has remained who he was metamorphosed into the new Jesus. All thanks to Constantine!
Meanwhile, this fraud didn’t just start from him, the real preaching of Jesus Christ had suffered great falsification, only that Constantine fine-tuned it.
Constantine was a pagan as at 325AD when he presided over a meeting that decided the fate of Jesus Christ at the council of Nicea. Constantine at that time has the title PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. The title gave him the right to control all religious sects. Constantine wasn’t a Christian yet at that time. He only became a Christian after many years.
According to reports, Constantine, who had never been baptized as a Christian for most of his lifetime, was baptized on his death bed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia. This was the same Arian schools of thought that the council of Nicea worked against. The meeting I am referring to is the council of bishops held at Nicea.
Constantine called a conference of Christian bishops far from Rome in 325 AD at Nicea. It was held on the summer solstice of June 21 – which was to honor the Sun, the son of God-Horus in Constantine’s actual religion. What was the issue? Who Jesus truly is!
Somebody need to ask, what prompted this meeting?
This may be startling to many, but as late as the fourth century CE, there was widespread hot debate about whether Jesus was divine or mere human.
In the fourth century, Christianity was a gentile faith and they had lots of trouble with Jewish terms such as Son of God and spirit. In the Hebrew scriptures son of God was used for anyone who was doing, reflecting the will of God as King Solomon or prophets like Ezekiel. It was also used for every Davidic king who was coronated because it was expected he would be reflecting God’s will in his rule. This calling one “son of God” meant God adopted him to be His servant.
Here are typical examples of what Sonship means in the Bible.
Romans 8:14
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God
Luke 6:35
“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
If not the anonymous writer of the Gospels of John and Revelation and some other New Testament writings that later called Jesus divine, Jesus remained the ordinary servant of God which he truly was.
Even at that, in the fourth century a large fraction of the church did not believe Jesus was divine. Some wondered if the Holy Spirit was another God. Arius, a very gifted elder in Alexandria, was the leading spokesman for those who did not believe Jesus was divine. Athanasius, the very influential bishop of Alexandria, was the leader for the opposite view that Jesus was divine in the same way as God the Father. I wouldn’t want to think for you here, please is it sensible that the divinity of Jesus all of a sudden become a topic of debate after centuries?
At the beginning of this controversy there was no official teaching or doctrine on the nature of Christ. You could choose to believe either way. The discussion had been raging for 200 hundred years in the predominantly Gentile Church. Most Jewish Christians never thought of Jesus as God.
Seeing this as an opportunity to sell his paganism to the whole world, Constantine interfered in this controversy. He called for the first ecumenical Church Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
After Arius and Athanasius spoke their views, Constantine imposed the result contrary to the true majority view. As Jacob Burckhardt explained in the Age of Constantine (Univ. Cal. Press, 1983) at 315:
“A period was finally put to the debate by the exercise of imperial authority. Constantine insisted upon the questionable expression homoousious against the will of the majority, whereupon the majority patiently submitted. Only two bishops refused their signature…Their reward were deposition [i.e., removal as bishops] and excommunication.”
Why did Constantine choose Athanasius’ view, even though it was the minority view?
He saw that as opportunity to sell his paganism to the world.
As Charles Sutherland said in Disciples of Destruction (Promethus, 1987) at 124:
“As a god, Jesus could be associated conveniently with Sol Invictus.”
This Invincible Sun was the god, son of Horus, in whom Constantine truly had his faith. Constantine clearly believed in this deity Sol Invictus who was not only a god himself but also the son of the god Horus -a father god of paganism.
Constantine was a pagan, if he had wanted a level ground for any debate concerning Jesus Christ, the then Pope of Rome shouldn’t have been sidelined.
Constantine set the council meeting far away from Rome, thereby preventing the infirm pope of Rome, Sylvester, from attending.
“Sylvester could not come in person, by reason of his great age….”
(Alban Butler, The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other principal saints (J.Duffy 1866) Vol. 2 at 224.)
Sylvester was pope from 314 AD to 335 AD. Yet, he failed to ever sign the articles of Nicea decreed in 325 AD. This is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) Vol. 14 at 371 col. 1. The encyclopedia carefully obscures this embarrassing fact by placing it among some droll observations. It still reads clear enough:
“Still it is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester the actual convening of the Council, nor whether there was an express papal confirmation of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legatees.”
There is no evidence that Sylvester agreed to Nicea as the location of the council. Pope Sylvester never signed the Articles of Nicea. Would you now agree that this is a big fraud?
What was the criteria used at the Council to decide who Jesus was? Bible? Not really!
There was no any compilation of the Bible until the synod(Council) of Hippo in 393AD. The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church . That is about 68 years after the council of Nicea.
Wikipedia says, “The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the FIRST TIME a council of bishops listed and APPROVED a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage (397) pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, the See of Rome. Previous councils had approved similar, but slightly different, canons. The council also reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical continence and reasserted it as a requirement for all the ordained, in addition requiring that all members of a person’s household must be Christian before that person can be ordained.”
At this juncture, a normal thinking individual should ask, which Bible was used to decide the divinity of Jesus Christ? Bible was canonised 68 years after Nicene Creed was formulated. What a fraud!
But how did this signed paper became bound on all bishops? It was money. Money answereth all things! Those who danced to the tune of Constantine and his team were paid handsomely, those who were against were sent out and got excommunicated.
Eusebius- who opened Nicea with a long introduction of Constantine — himself was a secret Arian. Thus, Eusebius becomes an example of a signatory to Nicea who then years later fought for Arius to be reinstated — Eusebius showing his hand only after years of effusive loyalty earning Constantine’s favor. Eusebius convinced Constantine to let Arius back into the empire, and to be bishop. This was done in Eusebius’ direct attack on Athanasius in 334-335 at two synods. Constantine then called an assembly at Jerusalem which ended in restoring “Arius and his followers to assembly.” source?
The Catholic Encyclopedia at page 619 in its article “Eusebius” which it wrote to its great embarassment.
Then Constantine soon thereafter died. What was Eusebius doing? He had stayed hidden until he gained Constantine’s trust.
As Jerome a generation later said: “Eusebius is the most open champion of the Arian heresy” (Jerome Epist. 84, 2). The editors of the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers comment on this, and say Eusebius “in effect denies the trinity.” (See E. Christopher Reyes, In His Name (2010) at 179, quoting Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, at 323-24.)
Before this Nicene scriptorial event, there was an already agreed “APOSTLE’S CREED” formulated earlier before 325AD. The apostles Creed never said Jesus is Divine. why the sudden change in the fourth Century? APOSTLES Creed was used for centuries before the fraud of Nicene Creed. In it, Jesus was said to be only a son of God (I already explained what that truly means). He wasn’t by anyway said to be divine at all. But the Nicene Creed said Jesus is the Lord, which is equally divine with the father.
If you have been following this piece from the very start, you must have notice that I didn’t mention the Holy spirit, the third of the Trinity. I didn’t forget to mention it, just that it wasn’t part of the result of the debate at Nicea, it was formulated later.
Have you heard of Niceno -Constantinopole? That was the council that held meeting in 381AD, that was when the holy spirit became the third of the Trinity.
The most notable difference is the additional section “And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
At the council of Nicea, Jesus was made divine fraudulently, 56 years later, holy spirit became the third the Trinity. Very very interesting! Isn’t it?
Bible was not canonised until after the council at Nicea. Definitely they didn’t use Bible but their canal knowledge. It will not be fallacious to conclude that, the canonisation of the Bible was based on this council report, they used only what they wanted to use, and discarded what would be against their fraud. If that wasn’t the case, where is the Gospel according to Thomas? What of The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ? And so on.
Constantine has no spiritual, commonsensical, logical, ideological, moral, and divinely ratified right to decide who Jesus is. He was a pagan!
They used the word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed (the Nicene Creed ) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father.
A challenge to the Christians, if the Nicene creed was not to “Christianize” paganism, kindly show me where the word “HOMOOUSIOS” is used in the Bible if Bible was used to equate Jesus with the father at Nicea in 325AD.
I don’t mind if it is new testament or old.
Jesus is not God. He never said he was God. He only became God in the Fourth century.
Constantine made his way into Christianity by buying the conscience of certain bishops. Why on earth would an important debate about Jesus Christ would be done behind the Pope? Something is definitely wrong. Constantine a pagan signed Jesus to be divine?
Why should even the divinity of Jesus brings argument if at all he was God? A God that was breast-fed? Excreted? He even got missing and his parents were worried over him. A God could be missing? His parents knew he was God yet they were looking for a missing God?
Did he (Jesus) forget his identity here?
As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. (John 8:40)
Christians wish such a verse do not exist. It is really a bad market for them when talking about Jesus.
Jesus by no means claimed mysticism or held his followers to worship him. It is the misconstruction and mistaken knowledge of the Church which says this.
Jesus says…
“My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
“My Father is greater than all” (John 10:29)
“I cast out devil by the spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me”
(John 5:30)
And here is a testimony about his personality…
“Ye Men of Israel listen to this, Jesus of Nazerath was a man amongst you approved by God by wonders, miracles & signs which God did by him & your witnessed to it” (Acts 2:22)
The only way christians will deny the above verses is to tell us we shouldn’t use canal knowledge to interpret Bible. To them Bible is a book of the spirit, and must only be understood by spiritual people. Then one need to ask, what is then the need to go out to preach what people will not understand unless they have the spirit?
Stop deceiving yourselves, this is 21st century!
But how did this signed paper became bound on all bishops? It was money. Money answereth all things! Those who danced to the tune of Constantine and his team were paid handsomely, those who were against were sent out and got excommunicated.
Eusebius- who opened Nicea with a long introduction of Constantine — himself was a secret Arian. Thus, Eusebius becomes an example of a signatory to Nicea who then years later fought for Arius to be reinstated — Eusebius showing his hand only after years of effusive loyalty earning Constantine’s favor. Eusebius convinced Constantine to let Arius back into the empire, and to be bishop. This was done in Eusebius’ direct attack on Athanasius in 334-335 at two synods. Constantine then called an assembly at Jerusalem which ended in restoring “Arius and his followers to assembly.” source?
The Catholic Encyclopedia at page 619 in its article “Eusebius” which it wrote to its great embarassment.
Then Constantine soon thereafter died. What was Eusebius doing? He had stayed hidden until he gained Constantine’s trust.
As Jerome a generation later said: “Eusebius is the most open champion of the Arian heresy” (Jerome Epist. 84, 2). The editors of the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers comment on this, and say Eusebius “in effect denies the trinity.” (See E. Christopher Reyes, In His Name (2010) at 179, quoting Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, at 323-24.)
Ladies and gentlemen, there was an already agreed “APOSTLE’S CREED” formulated earlier before 325AD, the apostles Creed never said Jesus is Divine. why the sudden change in the third Century? APOSTLES Creed was used for centuries before the fraud of Nicene Creed. In it, Jesus was said to be only a son of God (I already explained what that truly means). He wasn’t by anyway said to be divine at all. But the Nicene Creed said Jesus is the Lord, which is equally divine with the father.
If you have been following this piece from the very start, you must have notice that I didn’t mention the Holy spirit, the third of the Trinity. I don’t forget to mention it, just that it wasn’t part of the result of the debate at Nicea, it was formulated later.
Have you hear of Niceno -Constantinopole? That was the council that held meeting in 381AD, that was when the holy spirit became the third of the Trinity.
The most notable difference is the additional section “And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
At the council of Nicea, Jesus was made divine fraudulently, 56 years later, holy spirit became the third the Trinity. Very very interesting!
Bible was not canonised until after the council at Nicea. Definitely they didn’t use Bible but their canal knowledge. It will not be fallacious to conclude that, the canonisation of the Bible was based on this council report, they used only they wanted to use, and discarded what would be against their fraud. If that wasn’t the case, where is the Gospel according to Thomas? What of The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ? and so on
Constantine has no spiritual, commonsensical, logical, ideological, moral, and divinely ratified right to decide who Jesus Is. He was a pagan!
They used the word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed (the Nicene Creed ) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father.
A challenge to the Christians, if the Nicene creed was not to “Christianize” paganism, kindly show me where the word “HOMOOUSIOS” is used in the Bible if Bible was used to equate Jesus with the father at Nicea in 325AD.
I don’t mind if it is new testament or old.
Jesus is not God. He never said he was God. He only became God in the Fourth century.
Constantine made his way into Christianity by buying the conscience of certain bishops. Why on earth would an important debate about Jesus Christ would be done behind the Pope? Something is definitely wrong. Constantine a pagan signed Jesus to be divine?
Why should even the divinity of Jesus brings argument if at all he was God? A God that was breast-fed? Excreted? He even got missing and his parents were worried over him. A God could be missing? His parents knew he was God yet they were looking for a missing God?
Did he (Jesus) forget his identity here?
As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. (John 8:40)
Christians wish such a verse do not exist. It is really a bad market for them when talking about Jesus.
Jesus by no means claimed mysticism or held his followers to worship him. It is the misconstruction and mistaken knowledge of the Church which says this.
Jesus says…
“My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
“My Father is greater than all” (John 10:29)
“I cast out devil by the spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me”
(John 5:30)
And here is a testimony about his personality…
“Ye Men of Israel listen to this, Jesus of Nazerath was a man amongst you approved by God by wonders, miracles & signs which God did by him & your witnessed to it” (Acts 2:22)
The only way christians will deny the above verses is to tell us we shouldn’t use canal knowledge to interpret Bible. To them Bible is a book of the spirit, and must only be understood by spiritual people. Then one need to ask, what is then the need to go out to preach what people will not understand unless they have the spirit?
Stop deceiving yourselves, this is 21st century!
English 
