The Abrahamic Faith

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

A common myth is that Islam forces non-Muslims to convert to Islam and to adhere to Islamic religious law. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, Islam expressly forbids coercion in religious belief and practice, as the following verse from the Qur’an illustrates.

There is no compulsion to force (anyone into following this) way of life. (Qur’an 2:256)

If the above statement were not definitive enough, the following verses from the Qur’an clearly state that not even Prophet
Muhammad was allowed to force non-Muslims to become Muslims or to make them adhere to Islamic religious practices and conventions. He was only allowed to “remind with this Qur’an,” and “to convey (the message) clearly.” He was not allowed to force anyone to convert to Islam, and neither is any Muslim allowed to do so.

If God had wanted, He could’ve made everyone on earth into believers, (but He didn’t). So how can you make people believe when they don’t want to? No soul can believe except by God’s leave… (Qur’an 10:99-100)

You can’t impress them with a strong show of force, so instead remind with this Qur’an anyone who will fear My promise (of what is to come). (Qur’an 50:45)

So obey God and obey His Messenger, though if anyone turns aside, Our Messenger’s only duty is to convey (the message) clearly. (Qur’an 64:12)

Say to them, “The truth (has now come to you) from your Lord.” Whoever wants to believe (in it), will do so. Whoever wants to reject it, will do so. (Qur’an 18:29)

An additional misconception is that Islam is an Arab religion. In point of fact, many Arabs are not Muslims. Iraq houses a Christian population of around one million Arabs. About 05% of the Arabs in Jordan are Christian, and higher percentages of Christians are to be found among the Arabs of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Further, the vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs. There are over 160 million Muslims in Indonesia, over 100 million in Bangladesh, over 100 million in Nigeria, over 100 million in India, over 90 million in China, over 60 million in Turkey, and several million in Germany, France, and Great Britain.

With regard to Islam in America, it is currently estimated that there are over seven million Muslims in the United States, making it the second largest religion in the USA. Of those over seven million Muslims, it appears that somewhere between 30% and just over 50% are native-born Americans whose parents belong or had once belonged to some other religious tradition. In fact, American conversions to Islam range as high as 25,000 converts each year. During the last decade of the 20th century, the number of mosques in America has more than tripled, climbing from just over 600 to around 2,000. Currently, more Islamic books are being published in English than in Arabic.

THE ORIGINAL HOME OF THE SEMITES

The Arab historians and some European historians are unanimous that the original borne of the Semites was in Arabia. However, some of the European scholars are divided on the question. Their views are
given below:-

(1) The original home of the Semites was in Africa where the descendants of Ham, brother of Shem, could be traced even in the historic period .. The argument for this theory is that there is a very close affinity between the Semitic and Hamitic languages, and that the Semites and Hamites, specially those of South Arabia, are similar in physique.

This argument, however, is very strange. If one of two brothers, who resemble each other, lives in Africa, does it necessarily follow that the other brother also must live in Africa? Why is it not supposed that the Hamites after having lived with the Semites for a considerable time separated from them, and as a consequence of their common origin and long co-residence, they still retain some points of resemblance with their brothers, the Semites. The physical resemblance between the South-Arabians (the Yemenites) and the Abysinians (descendants of Ham) is quite natural because the latter are the mixed descendants of the former. Abyssinia was not a separate and independent country, but only a colony of the Yemenite Arabs. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. ll, p. 264).

This is why we find that ancient historians did not recognise Yemen and Abyssinia as
two separate countries, but two parts of the same country, viz Ethiopia.

(2) The original home of the Semites was in Armenia and Kurdistan. No argument save a reference in the Old Testament has been advanced in support of this theory, and even that reference has been misunderstood (as the reader will find it in below). The most learned Orientalist Theodore Noldeke, therefore, declares this theory to be untenable. (Ibid., Vol. XXIV, p. 620).

(3) The original home of the Semites was in the lower portion of the Euphrates. This is the view of the Italian Orientalist, Professor Guidi whose argument can briefly be described as follows:

Every language must in the beginning consist of such words only as are necessary to express elementary requirements, and such words much be found, as a hereditary measure, in the different offshoots of that language. Now, those words which are, commonly found in all the Semitic languages must guide us to locate the original home of their authors (i.e, the Semites), and being guided by this principle we come to the conclusion that the original home of the Semites was in the lower portion of the Euphrates.

Theodore Noldeke refutes this view also by saying (a) that the common words for elementary necessaries have been wiped out of existence by the lapse of time, and
(b) that the very assumption, viz. all the words for elementary necessaries must be common in the principal language and its offshoots, does not tally with reason, e.g. tent, boy, man, old, and some other words which are most elementary are not common in all the Semitic languages, and that those words which are common between the Semites of the north and those of the south must, according to Professor Guidi's theory, have come into existence in their original home, but the fact is that such words can hardly be traced near the Euphrates.

Before Guidi the same sort of argument was advanced by Von Kremer, who held that the ancient home of the Semites was near the Oxus and Jaxartes in Central Asia. That two conflicting conclusions could be derived from the similar data is enough to refute both of them.

(4) Arabia was the birthplace of Banu Sam (sons of Shem). This theory which is substantiated by facts and arguments finds favour with a large number of historians of Europe and America, such as De Goege,
Schrader, Winckler, Tiele, Meyer, Sprenger, Noldeke, Keane, Robertson Smith, Samuel Laing, W. Wright Sayee, R. W. Rogers, etc., etc.

The argument in support of this theory can be put briefly as follows :

(a) History proves that many early nations originally belonging to Arabia settled in other lands. (b) Of all the Semitic languages Arabic is the nearest to the original Semitic language.
(c) The physical structure of the Arabs bears a striking resemblance to the Semitic structure.
(d) The nomadic mode of Arabian life is a relic of the primitive and antiquated life of the Semites. (R. W. "Roiers, History of Babylon and Assyria, Vol. I, pp. 306-7).

Now I quote below the views of some well-known historians and philologists who hold that Arabia was the birthplace of the Semites:-

(1) The Semitic traditions conclusively prove that Arabia was the primitive home of the Semites. Arabia is the only tract of land which has ever since remained Semitic. Racial characteristics, religious fanaticism, aloofness from foreigners, nomadic mode of life, etc., prove the birthplace of the Semites to have been in a land of desert~Sayce. ( Vide his Assyrian Grammar)

(2) According to my conviction all the Semites can be traced to Arabia. They divided themselves into a number of tribes and sections. Who knows how many tribes preceded the Canaanites we meet with in the beginning of history~ Dr. Sprenger (Vide his Geography of Ancient Arabia)

(3) Religious anecdotes, philological researches, historical and geographical evidences prove conclusively that the original home of the Semitic races as in Arabia-Schrader.

(4) The first home of the Semite was Central Arabia, whence different clans migrated to Syria,Babylon 'Uman and Yemen, pushing off their predecessors towards Kurdistan, Armenia and Africa~De Goege.

(5) It is almost clear that they (the Assyrians) came Arabia, the birthplace of the Semites, though afterwards changed their nomadic life (and adopted a purely agricultural mode of life) in accordance with the local environments and circumstances~ Heeren. (Vide his Historical Researches of Ancient Commerce and Politics, Vol I,p. 292).

(6) It will take us some time to decide which of the views held by different scholars is correct, but at present I agree with Schrader and De Goege (quoted above).... W. Wright.

Professor R. W. Rogers says:

Whence these invaders (the Semites) came is not certain. It has been thought by some that they came from the north east through the passes of the Kurdistan mountains, and that Babylonia the land in which they had their first national development from which they spread over western Asia to make great career as Arabians, Canaanites and Aramaeans. This view, once stated and supported with suppressing learning, ls now almost abandoned, and but few great names may be cited among its adherents. A second view finds the original home of the Semites in Africa either in the north-eastern or north-western part of the great continen. It will be idle to deny that strong linguistic support for this view may be found in the recognized affinity between the Semitic languages and Egyptian, Coptic, Berber and the Kush*te (Bisbaree, Galla, Somali, etc.) languages. But when all has been said in favour of this view, there still remain more potent considerations in favour of a third view, that the origanal home of the Semites was in Arabia, out of which they came in succesive waves of migration to find larger and more bountiful lands in Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and even in the far western land of Canaan. This latter view seems ever to find fresh supports in the newer facts and to me it is clearly the best solution of the problems. ( ibid., Vol. I,p. 452).

Samuel Laing writes :

Our point seems sufficiently clear; that wherever may have been the original seat of the Aryans, that of the Semites most be placed in Arabia. Everywhere else we can trace them as an immigrating or invading people, who found prior populations of difterent races, but in Arabia they seem to have been original. Thus in Chaldea and Assyria, the Semites are represented in the earliest history and traditions coming from South, partly by the Persian Gulf and partly across the Arabian and Syrian deserts. In Arabia alone we find Semites and Semites only, from the very beginning. (Vide his Human Origin)

The most authentic writer on the subject, Theodore Noldeke, writes in the Encyclopedia Britannica, in his article on "Semitic languages" :

Some prominent scholars consider the birthplace of the Semitic race to have been in Arabia. There Is much that appears
to support this theory. History proves that from a very early period tribes from the deserts of Arabia settled on the cultivable lands which border them and adopted a purely agricultural mode of life. Various traces in the language seem to indicate that the Hebrews and the Aramaeans are originally nomads and Arabia with its northern prolongation (the Syrian desert) is the true home of nomadic people. The Arabs are also supposed to display the Semitic character in its purest form, and
their language is, on the whole, nearer the original Semitic than are the languages of the cognate races .... We willingly admit that the theory which regards Arabia as the primitive seat of all Semites is by no means untenable. (Vol. XXIV, p. 620).

Another writer in his article on "Arabia" in the Encyclopedia Britannica writes:

Arabia is a land of Semite and is supposed by some scholars to have been the original home of the Semitic peoples. Although this cannot be said to be proved, the studies, linguistic and archceological, of Semitic scholars have shown it to be probable.The dispersion from Arabia is easy to imagine. The migration into Babylonia was simple, as there are no natural boundaries to separate it from north-east Arabia, and similar migrations have taken place in historic times. That of the Arameans at an early period is likewise free from any natural hindrance. ( Vol.II, p. 263).

So far, we discussed the question of the original home of the Semites from the view points of language, customs, practices, physical resemblance and natural evidences. Now let us approach the subject from the historical standpoint. The oldest history on the subject is the Old Testament and there we find: ''And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar [Babylonia]; and they dwelt there.... So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel.(Gen.11: 2, 8, 9).

Now the question is : What is meant here by the east? Commentators of the Old Testament have not yet been able to give a definite answer to the question. It is, however, generally assumed that the east here means Armenia, because the mountain on which the Arc of Noah anchored is mentioned in the Old Testament under the name of ''Ararat'' which is supposed to be situated in Armenia'. But the difficulty is that Armenia is not situated to the east, either of Babylon or of Palestine. To remove this difficulty some say that Moses lived in Egypt and Arabia, and Armenia lies to the east of these countries; while others say that as man first of all knew the eastern horizon only (the east being the rising place of the sun), Armenia has been referred to as an eastern country. It is hardly necessary to say that these suggestions are not worthy of serious consideration.

From the Biblical statement it is clear that Babylon was not the first residence of the Semites and that they migrated to that country from the east. In the language of the Bible the term "east" generally stands for the east of Palestine which was the place of the compilation of that Holy Book, viz. Babylon and Arabia. Babylon being the place to which the (the Semites) migrated from the east, the term "east" cannot but refer to the other country, viz. Arabia (the place from which they migrated).

Our most ancient source of information after the Old Testament is The Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, which is, in some sense, a commentary of the Old Testament. There we find: "They [the Semitic races extended from the Euphrates up to the Indian Ocean." The land between the Euphrates and the Indian Ocean cannot be any other country than Arabia.

Another point to be noticed is that the Arabs alone have claimed that their country was the first home of the Semites, and this claim which has been substantiated by arguments and evidences is not disputed by any other people, Naturally, therefore, the Arabs' claim must be accepted as true.

The historian Ibn Qutaibah (d. 276 H.) writes:
Sam .bin Nuh (Shem, a son of Noah) occupied the land lying between Mecca and the neighbouring territories, viz ... Yemen,
Hadramaut, Uman, Bahrain, Bubrain, Dabar, Daw and Dahna..(Kitab Al-ma'arif p.10).

The historian Ya'qubi (d. 280 H.) writes:
The descendants of Sam (Shem) had Hijaz, Yemen and other lands in their occupation. ( Tarikh, (Lyden) p.17).

The Qur'an, therefore, rightly characterises Mecca as "Ummul-Qura." (mother of towns), as it says: So that you may warn "the mother of towns" (i.e. Mecca) and the people who live in its neigbbourbood. (Quran 6:93).

THE CHRISTIANS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S TIME

“…And thou wilt find the nearest of them in
affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians.” (Qur'an 5:82)

The world’s population constitute nearly 2.3 billion Christians (31.1%) and 1.9 billion Muslims (24.9%) that accounts for more than half of the total number (7.79 billion) according to the latest statistics. (2050’de 2.9 billion 31.4 Christian, 2.7 billion 29.7 Muslim) The relations between them decisively influence the world from religious, intellectual, political, economic and social aspects. The origins of these relations go back to the relations that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) established with Christians during his time according to the Qur’an. The determination of the quantity and nature of Muhammad’s relations keeps making a great contribution to world peace, prosperity and tranquility since his days. Scholars argue that in the years Islam was reformed, there were 15 million Christians among Eastern Arabs.(An Introduction to the History of Islamic-Western Relations p. 74).

A variety of sects or groups, including the Nestorians or Assyrians, Monophysites, and Dyophysites, Malkites had a strong
chance that Muhammad may encountered them. Considering the relations with Christians, the first encounters we recall are among the Eastern Roman Empire and its satellite, vassal states. The reason might rely heavily on the fact that this empire held massive power and symbolized a flagbearer of Christianity on both religious and political-military fields. İn the time, the Ghassanids in Syria, the Copts in Egypt, and even the Christians of Abyssinia and Najran were directly or indirectly connected to the Eastern Rome. Perhaps it was only the Hirean Christians were vassals of the Sassanid Empire that did not identify their faith in accordance with the Roman Empire. (Pre-Islamic Arab History p. 68-74. Muhammad and others p.32-34)

After abandoning the creed of Monotheism, the Jews, who had come under the rule of the Romans, began to expect the arrival of a new prophet, a savior, a Messiah who would save them. God brought Jesus into the world through the Virgin Mary. Although Jesus showed miracles from his birth, and although
there were very few who believed in him, his message spread afterwards through his apostles. Over time, various sects were born among the descendants. Christianity had the status of an official religion in Eastern Roman Empire. Although Orthodoxy Christianity was the predominant religion in Eastern Rome, there were other forms of different religions that existed. In Constantinople, the Nestorian-Syriac, Abyssinian and Coptic Armenian churches were represented independently and engaged in activities freely.

Egypt and Abyssinia, neighboring the Arabian Peninsula and in which the Arabs had relations, were dominated by the Monophysite, and Jerusalem was dominated by the Trinity doctrine. To create a common ground, the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine ruled all his Christian subjects to join the sect Dyophysitism during a council held in Chalcedon with the underlying purpose of unifying different sects blooming under his rule. (Christianity: Sects and Orders V. 17, p. 353-355).

This religious-political project did not interest many followers, since it required absolute subordination to the king, and the idea itself being a by-product of the King himself. Muqawqis was appointed by the Eastern Roman Empire as governor and bishop of Egypt to spread this sect, and meanwhile the Ghassanis who adopted this new sect followed a policy of establishing good relations with Egyptians. Additionally, the Kalb, Taghlib, Lahm, Cuzam, Kayn Baliyy, Kudaa and some other Arab tribes living in the same region had also partially or completely converted to Christianity. (Relations with Christians V. 1;Hz. Peygamber p.543).

As a matter of fact, there is none solid documents that records Christianity
to gain a strong foothold among Arabs of Arabia back in the time. Furthermore, Marcus Julius Philippus (244-249 CE), known as Philip the Arab, who took the Roman throne in the middle of the 3rd century, accepted Christianity only to remain private and did not identify himself with it in the public domain. In the 5th century, some of the Ghassanids that were in the buffer zone on the Syria-Jerusalem route on the Eastern Roman-Arabian border accepted a form of Christianity called Monophysite. The members of the sect Nestorianism, founded by the patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, were also known as Assyrians or Syrians. When Nestorianism was excluded by Eastern Romans and subjected to prosecution, it retreated to the territory of the Sasanids. Hire was one of them. Copticism was an Eastern Church based in Alexandria, which also had an influence on Abyssinia. Even though the kingdom of Aksum was run independently, they still accepted the authority of the Coptic Church. Christianity also gained adherents among the Lakhmids-Hirans. Nu'man bin Munzir, the head of the Lakhmids, was converted to Nestorian Christianity
between 583 and 602.

Essentially, Hira, the capital of the Lakhmis, had been the centre of Nestorianism since the 4th century. In fact, this sect even had a base further south, on the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf. So much so that there were Nestorian bishops in Bahrain, which is considered to be the eastern coast of Arabia. In addition, there was a Monophysite community that accepted Christianity through Abyssinia in the Najran region on the border with Yemen. There are no clear records about when Christianity was preached there. (Religious, Political, Socio-Cultural and Economic History of the Pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula V. 1;Hz. Peygamber p.146).

When Prophet Muhammad began to transmit the message of Islam, the Christians in Mecca consisted of foreigners, slaves, and locals without a church. There are no exact records on the religious nature of the few Christians of Hejaz and their relations with the Eastern Rome. They also did not have a temple
or church. (Ozkuyumcu, p. 547). Moreover, most of the Christians to whom Prophet Muhammad received an interlocutor for his invitation were of Arab origin. In addition,
to fulfil his divine duty, he contacted several rulers of states (kings) through envoys including the Eastern Rome and Abyssinia. However, it is also fair to suggest that they also had a Monophysite understanding of Christianity, which was rather derived from Syria.

THE NATURE OF JESUS IN ISLAM AND EARLY CHRISTIANTY

Islam holds that Jesus was a man, but one who was selected by God to be a Prophet and Messenger. Despite Islam’s adherence to the virgin birth of Jesus, Islam maintains that Jesus was created by God, not begotten by Him.

Say (to them): “He is only one God—God the Eternal Absolute. He neither begets nor was He begotten, and there is nothing equal to Him. (Qur’an 112:1-4)

“But my Lord!” she (Mary) cried out. “How can I have a son when no man has touched me?” “And so it is that God creates whatever He wants,” the angels replied. “When He decides something, He only has to say, ‘Be,’ and it is.”… The example of Jesus in the sight of God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, saying, “Be,” and he was. (Qur’an 3:47, 59)

(Jesus) was no more than a servant to whom We granted Our favor. We made him an example for the Children of Israel.
(Qur’an 43:59)

When considering the issue of the nature of Jesus within early Christianity, one is immediately confronted with the major
differences that existed among various early Christian churches. At the risk of over simplifying, the ways in which early Christianity answered the question of the nature of Jesus can be grouped into three broad categories: Jesus was God; Jesus was man and God simultaneously; and Jesus was a man.

The first position, i.e., that Jesus was God, denies the humanity of Jesus. This position was represented in early Christianity by many forms of Christian Gnosticism, especially by Docetism. The Docetist position was that Jesus did not have a real or material body, but only a phantom or apparent body. As such,
the Docetists maintained that Jesus could not have died on the cross because he did not have a physical body. Likewise, because he had no physical body, there could have been no resurrection.

The second position, i.e., that Jesus was both God and man simultaneously, is the one that evolved into the typical and orthodox doctrines of contemporary Christianity. That Jesus is neither simply God, nor simply man, but is both God and man simultaneously is directly stated in the so-called Nicene Creed issued by the Council of Constantinople in 381 and in the creedal formulation issued by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

However, the simultaneous god-man dichotomy finds its fullest expression in the statement issued by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

…our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity…in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated. The distinction between the natures is by no means done away with through the union, but rather the identity of each nature is preserved and concurs into one person and being.

There are two natures that are neither “mixed” nor “separated.” If they are neither “mixed” nor “separated,” then what are they? Clearly, this is a doctrine that can be promulgated only through recourse to the phrase “divine mystery,” because the doctrine that there is something that is neither “mixed” nor “separated” defies all human logic.

The third position, i.e., that Jesus was a man, although one standing in a special relationship with God, is represented in early Christianity by the various Adoptionist theologies, including Dynamic Monarchianism, A***nism, Nestorianism, the Paulicians of Armenia, etc. These early Christian movements basically maintained that Jesus’ relationship to God was like that of an adopted son to his adoptive father, not like a begotten son to his begetting father. This position is more or less consistent with Islamic thought, which views Jesus as being a man, albeit as a man who was a prophet and messenger of God, and who thus stood in a special relationship with God.

The Adoptionist trajectory in early Christianity begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. According to most Adoptionists, it was at this moment that Jesus moved into his special relationship with God, not at his conception or birth. With regard to the baptism, the account of the Gospel of Luke is especially relevant. As noted in appropriate footnotes to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the oldest Greek manuscripts of and quotations from Luke render the key verse in question as follows.

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” (Luke 3:21-22)

“Today I have begotten you,” i.e., at the time of baptism, not at the time of conception. Given that Jesus was clearly an adult at the time of his baptism, under this ancient reading of Luke, “begotten” must be understood metaphorically, not physically or literally. In other words, the “sonship” of Jesus was a created relationship, not a begotten relationship. Furthermore, before the contemporary Christian rejects this probably original wording of Luke 3:22, he or she should consider that this exact wording is also to be found in Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5, and Acts 13:33, in what are obvious references to the baptism of Jesus. This same wording is also to be found in Psalms 2:7 and in the Gospel of the Ebionites, the latter of which reads as follows.

When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John…And a voice (sounded) from heaven that said: “You are my beloved son; in you I am well pleased.” And again: “I have this day begotten you.” (Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius in Panarion 30.13.7-8)

Given this scriptural legacy, it is not surprising that Adoptionism was a potent force within early Christianity from the first through the seventh centuries. In fact, one can trace the chronological trajectory of Adoptionism and related subordinationist Christologies with some precision.

As early as the first century, the Adoptionist position was a key doctrine of the Ebionites, who maintained that Jesus became the messiah and adopted son of God at his baptism and that this was secondary to Jesus having obeyed the Mosaic Law. Circa 100, Elkasai, the founder of the Elkasites, began to preach an early Christian doctrine in Parthia. Central to the preaching of Elkasai was the concept that Jesus Christ was simply a prophet of God.

Early in the second century, Cerinthus preached a Gnostic version of the Adoptionist position. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was an exemplary man upon whom descended the Christ (who was to be differentiated from Jesus) at the time of the baptism. In short, Cerinthus taught that Jesus was a prophet upon whom divine power descended. Circa 160-170 CE, Theodotus the Gnostic preached a Gnostic branch of Adoptionist theory throughout Turkey. Influenced by Valentinus, Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man who was created by God, and who was united with God in a special relationship at the baptism, in order to bring knowledge to man.

Circa 189 CE, Theodotus the Tanner traveled from Byzantium to Rome, where he propounded an Adoptionist position that
maintained that Jesus was a mere man, although miraculously conceived. According to this Theodotus, Jesus was the metaphorical son of God only to the extent that God granted him divine wisdom and power at his baptism. Despite being excommunicated by Pope Victor I, Theodotus acquired numerous followers who continued his Adoptionist preaching, which began to be known as Theodotianism or Dynamic Monarchianism. This movement lasted well into the third century CE.

Origen (circa 185-254 CE) was a celebrated writer, theologian, and priest who contributed numerous volumes to early Christian literature. Among the notable aspects of Origen’s theology was his insistence that “the Son (was) inferior to the Father.” Clearly a subordinationist when it came to the nature of Jesus, Origen’s teachings were later to influence Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius, and the rise of A***nism.

Dionysius of Alexandria became head of the catechetical school at Alexandria circa 231 CE and Bishop of Alexandria in 248 CE, thus becoming one of the five princes or patriarchs of the church, a position that he held until 264 CE. Following in the footsteps of Origen, Dionysius stressed the subordination of Jesus to God, arguing that Jesus did not exist before being engendered, that therefore there was a time in which Jesus did not exist, and that therefore Jesus was not eternal. Not being
eternal, Jesus had to be a creation and product that was foreign to the being and substance of God, just as the vine is foreign to the gardener and the ship is foreign to the ship builder. It needs to be emphasized that here was a bishop and patriarch, a prince of the early Christian church, who actively proclaimed the subordination of Jesus to God and who stressed that Jesus was a creation of God. As will be seen, he was hardly the last bishop, patriarch, and prince of the church to take this position.

Circa 260 CE, Paul of Samosata, Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch, advanced the Adoptionist position. Paul held that Jesus was a man who was born of Mary and that Jesus was divine only to the extent that he was the human vehicle through whom God spoke. As a result of Paul’s preaching, at least three different church councils were held at Antioch to debate Paul’s orthodoxy. Rather amazingly, it was only after the third council in 268 that Paul was deposed from his episcopacy. Nonetheless, Paul’s Adoptionist message was picked up by his followers, who later evolved into the Paulicians of Armenia, a Christian movement active as late as the seventh century.

St. Lucian of Antioch (circa 240-312 CE) was a celebrated Christian teacher and theologian, whose theological formulations regarding the nature of Jesus appeared to have been influenced by Paul of Samosata. In turn, Lucian’s teachings were to be influential in the later thinking of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and of Arius, the founder of A***nism. Despite his Adoptionist teachings regarding the nature of Jesus, Lucian was canonized a saint of the church, in part secondary to his being tortured and starved to death for his refusal to eat meat that had been ritually offered to the pagan gods of Rome during the persecution of Christians by Emperor Maximinus.

The Adoptionist position in early Christianity reached its zenith under the teachings of Arius (circa 250-335 CE), a priest in Alexandria, Egypt. Arius taught that God is absolutely unique and incomparable, is alone self-existent, unchangeable, and infinite, and must be understood in terms of his absolute
Oneness. Given this all-important first premise, Arius concluded that: (1) the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Biblical gospels demonstrates that Jesus was not self-existent, that he changed and grew over time, if in no other way than in passing through the stages of birth, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, and that he was finite, having a definite time of conception and birth. Therefore, (2) Jesus was God’s created being, who was called into existence out of nothingness, who could not have shared in the absolute uniqueness, immutability, and infinity of the Godhead without compromising them, who could not have been of the same substance as God without compromising the Oneness of God, and who could have had no direct knowledge of God, other than that which God chose to reveal to him.

It was due to the rapid rise of A***nism that the Synod at Alexandria met in September of 323 CE and formally excommunicated Arius. However, this excommunication was promptly reversed at the Synod of Bithynia in October of 323. Finally, Emperor Constantine was forced to convene the Council of Nicaea in May of 325, which formalized the doctrine that Jesus was of one substance with the Father. Arius refused to sign this creed and was thence branded as a heretic. However, the A***n position within Christianity was so strong that Constantine was forced to reinstate Arius at the Synod of Jerusalem in 335. Later that same year, Arius died at Constantinople.

However, that was hardly the end of A***nism within early Christianity. Quite simply, despite the verdict of the Council of Nicaea, A***nism was probably the dominant Christology within fourth-century Christianity. Many bishops had refused to attend the Council of Nicaea, and many others recanted their vote at Nicaea once they were safely removed from Constantine’s soldiers. As an example, one can turn to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Bishop of Berytus and Nicomedia. Eusebius rejected the doctrine that Jesus and God were of the same substance and led the A***n opposition at the Council of Nicaea before being forced to sign off on the doctrine under force of arms. Safely back home, he renewed his alliance with Arius and was then exiled to Gaul by Constantine. However, Eusebius continued to lead the A***n charge until his death circa 342 CE.

In response to the continued growth of A***nism, the Council of Antioch in 341 CE released a new creed that omitted any mention of Jesus and God being of one substance. Apparently, the bishops gathered at the Council of Antioch, while rejecting the earlier findings of the Council of Nicaea, were unable to agree on any formulation regarding the relationship of Jesus to God.

In the middle of the fourth century, a modified form of A***nism (semi-A***nism) was propounded by Macedonius, the Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople (339-341 and 351-360 CE), arguably a position secondary only to the Pope in the hierarchy of the church. While the formal teachings of Macedonius regarding the nature of Jesus appear to have oscillated somewhat over time, there is little doubt that he did what he could to repress the formulation derived at Nicaea that Jesus and God were of one substance.

Circa 350 CE, Aetius, a priest at Antioch, taught that God had always existed and that self-existence is part of the very essence of God, while Jesus was created by God. Given these premises, Aetius argued that Jesus was not consubstantial with God and was totally different than God, giving rise to the Anomoeist
movement in fourth-century Christianity. While excommunicated for his A***nism, Aetius was reinstated by Eudoxius, Bishop of Antioch, and was made a bishop by Emperor Julian in 361.

The teachings of Aetius garnered tremendous support within Syria and the Middle East, in part due to his irrefutable logic as expressed in 300 syllogisms, all but 47 of which were later lost to recorded history. Furthermore, his position was ratified and endorsed by the Council of Sirmium in 357 CE. This council issued a creedal formulation that said that Jesus was “unlike” (anomoios) God. In short, based upon the position taken at the Council of Sirmium, the “official” position of Christianity in 357 was that Jesus Christ was “unlike” God and was of a different substance than God!

Only in 381 CE, at the Council of Constantinople, attended by only about 150 bishops, none of whom represented Western Christianity, was the A***n position finally laid to rest by the ecclesiastical structure of the church with the issuance of the so-called Nicene Creed. Notwithstanding this ecclesiastical dismissal, A***nism continued to flourish in many Christian areas and was a potent force within some Germanic tribes until the end of the seventh century. Even today, A***nism continues to be influential in the Unitarian movement and among the Jehovah Witnesses, who regard Arius as a forerunner of their founder, Charles Taze Russell.

As a final example, consider King Clovis I (460-511 CE) of the Salian Franks. Following his military campaign against the Alemanni, and under the guidance of his wife Clothilda, a princess of Burgundy, Clovis renounced paganism and accepted A***n Christianity. He then led his entire army and the Salian Frankish kingdom into being baptized into A***n Christianity. Despite the fact that Clothilda was an A***n Christian, she was canonized a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. She died on June 3, 543 CE, in Tours, France, and her feast day is June 3. Of note, A***n Christianity remained the dominant religious force within the Frankish people throughout the seventh century.

In summary, early Christianity was quite conflicted about the issue of the nature of Jesus. The various Adoptionist positions
within early Christianity were numerous and at times dominant. One can even speculate that A***n Christianity might well be a very sizable force within Christianity today if it were not for the fact that this branch of Christianity was so similar to the Islamic teaching regarding the nature of Jesus that it quite naturally was absorbed into Islam reforming in the seventh century CE.