CONTENTS

PREFACE

ISLAM IS THE ONLY ONE

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINES
OF CHRISTIANITY

2.1     Constantine “The Great” Supports the Pauline Christianity

2.2     Christian Theologians Freely Made Changes To Their Doctrines 

2.3     Christians Oldest Confession of Faith: The Apostles Creed   

2.4     The Summary of Pauline Doctrines (Based on the Apostles and Other Christian Creeds)

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

EPILOGUE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Firdaus.Com

2.2  The Church Councils Could Freely Made Changes To Their Doctrines (Creeds)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has:

“Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches, e.g. the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed, the professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent; or the symbols of certain popes, e.g, the Fides Damasi or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI.”[1] 

Concerning different Creeds that evolved as the result of the Church Council, St. Hillary, the Bishop of Potiers in the 4^th century and one of the “ Fathers of the Church” confesses: 

“It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous that there are as many Creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us, because we make creeds arbitrarily...every year, nay every moon. We make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent …we condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or ours in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces. We have been the cause of each other ruins.”[2] 

By referring to the statement of St. Hillary of Potiers, it is not uncommon thing to find that some  Christians theologians even dare to condemn and criticize their own Church Councils or Synods for committing such misbehavior act upon the so-called religion of Christ. For example, The desert hermit St. Jerome (d.420 C.E), ‘one of the Doctor of the Church’ described the New Testament’s Book of Revelation, as ‘unintelligible nonsense’, and when he wrote to bishop Chormatius and Helidorus towards the end of the Fourth Century, he said: 

“…a disciple of Manicheus named Selencus wrote falsely the ‘Act of the Apostles’[3] which exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction, and that the book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen.”[4]

 Such confessions cause grave doubt about everything recorded in the Christian texts.[5] 

The second Church Council of Nicaea in 785 criticizes the first Church Council of Nicaea which among others formulate the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation. Tony Bushby, the author of “The Bible Fraud: An Untold Story of Jesus Christ” states that: 

“The second council of Nicaea in 785denounced the first council of Nicaea as ‘a Synod of fools and madmen’.[6] If one chooses to read the records of the second Nicaean Council and note the references to ‘affrighted bishops’ and ‘soldiery’ needed to ‘quell proceedings’, the ‘fools and madmen’ declaration was surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.”[7] 

It seems that the modern-day Church to depict the early Christian Councils as consisting of a collegiate body of ‘fair-minded senators’ moving peacefully towards collective decisions is most certainly not reflected in the Church’s own ancient literature.[8] Dean Milman, the celebrated Christian historian, summarized the general nature of Church Council when he said: 

“Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the Councils of the Church…The degeneracy is rapid from the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E) to the first of Ephesus (431 C.E), where each party came determined to use every means of haste, manoeuvre, court influence, bribery, to crush his adversary;…where each had its own tumultuous foreign rabble to back his quarrel…”[9]