Skip navigation

Category Archives: History

Muslims sometimes allege that The Bible became corrupted at the Council Of Nicea in 325 AD. The Council Of Nicea was an important Council of Church leaders held in what is now the Turkish city Iznik. Here is an example of a Muslim who thinks The Bible was corrupted At Nicea.

Sometimes Muslims specify that it was wicked Romans, specifically Emperor Constantine who corrupted The Bible at this Council.

The Bible Was Not Discussed At Nicea

The Council Of Nicea did not corrupt The Bible. In fact, The Canon (i.e. list of accepted books) of The Bible was not even discussed at Nicea. The main purpose of Nicea was to define exactly what is meant by Jesus being called Son Of God.

Since The Canon was not discussed at this Council,  it is impossible that this Council corrupted The Bible. You can find an overview of the proceedings of the Council Of Nicea here. The Canon was not altered by The Council Of Nicea. All Bishops that attended the conference used the same Bible that we have today, whether or not they supported the position that Jesus is God or whether they thought Jesus was not God.

Bibles Before Nicea Same As Those After Nicea

We have about sixty Bible manuscripts which predate The Council Of Nicea. These ancient manuscripts all support the current Bible. We also have accounts of the proceedings of The Council Of Nicea which tells us what was said and done. These proves that The Council Of Nicea did not change The Bible.

Anti-Nicean Bishops Believed Jesus Is The Son Of God

At Nicea there were two groups of Bishops. Both groups believed that Jesus Is The Son Of God. The heretical group, however, believed that The Son was created.

The heretical Christian leader, Arius, was the leader of those who believed that Jesus is a created being. We have letters written by Arius to other church leaders and to the Emperor Constantine. Here is an extract from one of those letters. It clearly states that Arius believed that Jesus is The Son Of God and that Jesus is Divine. Arius wrote to the Emperor Constantine saying this:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten from Him before all ages, God the Word, by whom all things were made, whether things in heaven or on earth; He came and took upon Him flesh, suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven…

Arius plainly states that he believes that Jesus is The Son Of God, Creator and Divine.

This means that all Christians, even those those disagreed with the decisions of Nicea, agreed that Jesus is The Son of God before The Council Of Nicea. This means that Nicea did not create the formulation that Jesus is The Son Of God and that The Bible was not altered at Nicea.

Arius and the heretical Bishops all believed that Jesus is The Son Of God and that Jesus was Divine. They believed this before Nicea. Where Arius and his followers disagreed with Orthodox Christians was that Arius believed that Jesus Himself was created. Arius believed that Jesus was created by The Father as a Divine creation before time began.  Here is a further letter written by Arius to a Church leader named Eusebius. This letter was written in 319 AD, six years before Nicea.

we say and believe …that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten…

we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning…And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being

Anti-Nicene Beliefs Unacceptable To Muslims

So we see that the heretical Bishops, led by Arius, had a strange combination of beliefs. They believed that Jesus is The Son Of God, that Jesus is Divine, that Jesus is the God of all humanity, that Jesus existed before time began and that there is a Trinity of Divine beings, but that nevertheless Jesus is a created being. The Anti-Nicene Bishop Ulfilas expressed his belief that Jesus is a created God like so

I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God;

Arius wrote in his work Thalia

Certainly there is a Trinity .. and they possess glories of different levels

This combination of beliefs is obviously completely unacceptable to Muslims and opposed to the teaching of The Qu’ran. This is unfortunate for Muslims who like to believe that Christianity was identical to Islam until corrupted by Constantine at the Council Of Nicea and who like to see Arius as a kind of Islamic hero of original ‘Islamic’ Christianity.

As can be plainly seen the beliefs of Arius and the Anti-Nicene Bishops are completely non-Islamic.

Anti-Nicene Bishops Used The Same Bible As Everyone Else

The Bishops that opposed the decisions of The Council Of Nicea used the same Bible as everyone else. The Anti-Nicene Bishop Ulfilas quoted from Luke and Acts. Another Arian,  Maximinus quoted from Matthew, Luke and 2 Timothy. By inspection of his letters we can see that Arius quoted Scripture from Psalms, John, Proverbs, 1 Timothy, Romans, Mark, Colossians, Deuteronomy, Phillippians as well as numerous other books in The Bible.

From the writings of the Anti-Nicene leaders we can see that they used the same Bible as everyone else. This is proof that Nicea did not change The Bible to remove or invent scripture to support the teaching that Jesus is equally God with The Father, co-equal and co-eternal.

Son Of God

The fact that The Council Of Nicea was called to discuss what is meant by Jesus being the Son Of God proves that the Bible of pre-Nicea and pre-Islamic times said that Jesus was the Son Of God. Obviously, this means that The Bible contained the assertion that Jesus is The Son Of God prior to Nicea and that the Council Of Nicea did not invent this title for Jesus.

So, the Council Of Nicea was essentially a debate over what was meant by Jesus being called The Son Of God. The heretical Bishop Arius, who believed that Jesus was NOT God, but a unique kind of semi-divine, half-angel / half-God creation, the first thing that God created when he created the universe, used the same gospels and epistles (the ones that are in the Bible now) to argue his case.  The two sides did not disagree on what the scriptural documents stated, nor did they disagree on which documents should be ‘in’ the Bible.  They disagreed, with heated debate, merely on the interpretation of these same scriptures.

Romans Tortured And Killed The Christians

In fact, many of the Church leaders present at the Council of Nicea had been tortured by The Roman Emperors for their belief that Jesus is God. They attended with eyes gouged out, fingers hacked off, horrific scarring from being whipped to the point of death and with the muscles of their legs cut through so they could not walk properly. Of course, many many other Bishops and leaders had been killed by the Romans for believing and teaching that Jesus is God. They and the early Church had all believed Jesus that Jesus is God well before Nicea.

If Romans corrupted The Bible to say that Jesus is God, as believed by some Muslims, then why would Romans torture and kill church leaders for saying that Jesus is God, in agreement with the false Bible that they supposedly created ? It is completely illogical to things that Romans would torture and kill people for believing in things they the Romans were forcing people to believe. So we see that the Muslim accusations are in ignorance of history and logic.

The subject matter of the Council Of Nicea proves that the early church believed that Jesus is The Son Of God and that The Bible said that Jesus is The Son Of God centuries before Islam and Nicea arrived.

The Council of Nicea did not invent or state anything new about Jesus. It merely affirmed those truths about Jesus already held by Christians since the time of Jesus and his companions. Specifically, Nicea did not discard or select Gospels or in any way modify the Bible, nor did the Council even discuss The Bible.

Constantine Forced His Personal Opinions Into The Bible

Muslims sometimes assert that The Emporer Constantine, who presided at The Council Of Nicea, forced his personal belief that Jesus is God on to the church, and therefore claim that the belief that Jesus is God was created by a corrupt Christian Roman Caliph.

This assertion is untrue.

In fact, Constantine wavered between views and for the most part of his reign after Nicea favoured the view that Jesus was not God. Constantine died in 337 AD and his successor Constantine II was firmly opposed to the idea that Jesus is God. This Emperor was an opponent of the doctrinal decisions of Nicea and persecuted the leading Nicean Bishop, Athanasius, driving him into exile.

The next Emperor after Constantine II, Emperor Valens, was also opposed to the doctrines of Nicea. He also did not believe that Jesus is God.

Therefore the view that Jesus is God has always been believed by God’s people even under hostility, persecution and penalty of death from the most powerful Roman Caliphs for the first 300 years after Jesus and despite rejection or ambivalence of this view from Emperor Constantine and his two next successors for the next fifty years following The Council Of Nicea

You can find some more information about Nicea here.

Advertisements

In 1933 a party of policemen set out from Darwin to question some Arnhem Land Aboriginal people over the deaths of five Japanese at Caledon Bay the previous year.

On the way, still 100 miles from Caledon Bay, the police passed near an encampment of an Aboriginal clan not connected to the incident. The police took the opportunity to enter the camp for the express purpose of raping the Aboriginal women there. They did so, but were interrupted in the very act by the returning Aboriginal husbands, brothers and sons.

A policeman was speared to death.

The much-respected Aboriginal leader, Dhakkiyer, openly stated he had thrown the lethal spear in defence of his wife, voluntarily travelled to Darwin to face trial and was sentenced to death. The patently absurd conviction resulted in popular protest in the Southern capitals of Melbourne and Sydney and the case was appealed to the High Court which overturned the verdict.

Dhakkiyer subsequently disappeared in police custody and was never seen again.

Dhakkiyer’s son, an eyewitness to the event where Dhakkiyer speared the policeman was still alive a few years ago.

It was common knowledge in Darwin in the 1930’s and until the 1950’s that Dhakkiyer had been shot by the police while in their custody and then dumped in Darwin Harbour.

But the truth of this matter has never been admitted.

The grotesque mistrial of Dhakkiyer is a judicial killing, by which I mean a deliberate attempt by the judge, Justice Wells and the legal system to murder Dhakkiyer by false conviction. Dhakkiyer’s reprieve by the High Court was then overturned by the Darwin police who completed the murder at first opportunity.

I would say that the unconfessed murder of Dhakkiyer and the concealment of his body warrants a Judicial Inquiry.

For the people of Arnhem Land, Dhakkiyer’s murder by the State and its agents is not considered a long-ago incident of regret or a rather superficial blemish on an otherwise exemplary record. In Blue Mud Bay Dhakkiyer’s murder is today’s news as they daily live in the pain of his murder and the irretrievable loss of his cultural knowledge which had not yet been passed on and they are still today actively seeking explanation, justification, justice.

Why should they not have it ?

Tony Abbott has in recent times called for a Judicial Inquiry into Julia Gillard’s association with corrupt union officials although he cannot even name the crime that she is supposed to have committed and although in any case the related events occurred before Gillard was an MP let alone Prime Minister. Abbott has also called for a Judical Inquiry into deaths from fires resulting from insulation installations under Kevin Rudd’s Pink Batts scheme.

Judical Inquiry this, Judicial Inquiry that.

Plainly Abbott is not at all concerned with justice, wrong-doing or otherwise in relation to these events. He’s just trying to destroy his political opponents by the machinery of the legal system, much in common with (In)Justice Wells who, unconcerned with justice or facts, simply desired to avenge the spearing of a white policeman.

Abbott is making much of his regular visits to Arnhem Land as he asserts concern for Aboriginal welfare and reconciliation by the mechanism of commercial development of Aboriginal lands. Forgive me if I think his concern is much more for the latter than the former.

Abbott actually opened his election campaign in Arnhem Land and promised the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Council. During this visit Mr Abbott said:

it is very important that white fellas and black fellas open their hearts to one another

True.
Who could disagree ?

In the words of Dhakkiyer’s nephew:

I like to know about a story from you – your mouth, your heart, your feeling your way of looking at it

Dhakkiyer’s nephew, though, is talking about justice in regard to an unconfessed murder. Does Mr. Abbott’s open heart traverse the same landscape as Dhakkiyer’s relatives? Could that open heart extend to truth in the matter of judicial killings by the white State against Aboriginal persons ? Or is that just another matter of importance to merely a few people with not nearly the imperative of commerce ?

Hey look let’s not open old wounds, let the old dogs lie undisturbed in their sleep, it’s a can of worms, just forget it, move on, cant fix it now, its so long ago. But Julia Gillard 21 years ago living with a corrupt union official ? Oh yes, please proceed very important, necessary, justice must be served, its for the people.

Are Judicial Reviews merely a tool for personal advantage, to destroy one’s opponents in the service of personal ambition, to gain and maintain political power ? Such misuse of the judiciary is a hallmark of totalitarian states, as is the creation of citizen-informer networks such as those proposed by Abbott’s colleaugue, Scott Morrison.

Dhakkiyer was a leader of the Yolngu people. The Garma Festival in Arnhem Land, where Tony Abbott made his call for open hearts is a celebration of Yolngu culture and tradition. As Abbott made his call for open hearts he stood on the very footfalls of Dhakkiyer.

OK. Yes. Let’s have some Judicial Reviews.
Let’s see where your heart is

Where is he ? Who kill him ?
I like to know about a story from you – your mouth, your heart, your feeling your way of looking at it. I want to know. From you people.
Tell us the truth where you buried him.

I asked everyone who had been around Darwin in the 1930’s what they thought had happened to Dhakkiyer and almost invariably they say the police took him out into Darwin Harbour and shot him. – Ted Egan, Justice Of Their Own

In 1934 the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory sentenced Yolngu Clan Leader Dhakiyerr Wirrpanda to death for spearing a policeman. The controversial verdict was subsequently overturned by the High Court amid large-scale protests in Sydney and Melbourne. Dhakkiyer subsequently disappeared while in Police Custody.

He tried for the people. They shot him for the people. For his old people. That his mercy for Dhakkiyer taking all the way to the court. Sitting there no English no understanding just saying like this somebody else have to interperet English the wrong way and making him disappear.

Making him disappear! I am talking strongly because I am the last family and the son of Dhakkiyer. If he broke one little law inside that goal I want them to tell us. I want information from them. Let us know. Because it is true out of my heart, out of my knowledge comes out whatever I do. Keep me reminds back to Dhakkiyer.

I should be with my father. I should be with my father. Just because he left half of his knowlege for us. He left half of the knowledge for us. The full knowledge was taken to Darwin and was just disappeared. Thats what I’m looking and what my family are looking at.

We are looking at very strongly finding where he is.

Some people say they shot him near a railway line in Darwin. Some people say say they shot him and buried him there. Some people are saying that he was carried away to the Darwin wharf and thrown into the sea. Which make me and my family very upset. Throwing man like him, throwing man who is strong leader like him! Honest leader like him! Throwing him to the fish throwing like dog, throwing him like a cow or something for the crocodile, for the rock cod to eat him up. Full black warrior which make our culture strong

We’ve been waiting waiting waiting waiting until today still waiting we heard lots of story about my uncle. I dont know where is he, who kill him, what it is you people have been doing to my uncle. I like to know about a story from you – your mouth, your heart, your feeling your way of looking at it. I want to know where is he, where is he. In here ? In the water, sea, or in the mud. Where is he ? I want to know from you people so I can tell my people in here.

We are not happy. We are not satisfied about books story books writing in a book telling a lie covering yourself. I want to know about true story.

So please. We want our father back. So please tell us the truth where you buried him.

Acknowledgement

The text above is a transcript from the documentary Tuckier (Dhakiyarr) v the King and Territory by Tom Murray of Macquarie University.