i notice a great deal of common anti-christ arguments are often islamic > paul preached a false gospel > jesus never claimed to be god > council of nicea made up the canon you hear most of this parroted by all types, but it makes more sense when understanding who stands to lose the most in the antithesis of the claim. comparing with other common tropes > crusades bad and its a really great cue to look into the opposite of whatever a muslim is saying. of course who benefits/loses is no mediator of truth, so it's telling when history so consistently corroborates christendom at nearly every turn when further investigated.
United States