The doctrine of Trinity,
which is one of the fundamental constituents of Christian dogma, was
absent from Christianity during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. The
maximum one can grant is that this doctrine started taking shape after
the Crucifixion. It took many centuries for it to reach its final
well-defined but inexplicable form. It went through a long process of
extremely bitter and controversial debates between Christian theologians
and philosophers representing different religious, cultural and
traditional backgrounds.
It
was greatly influenced by the myths and the traditions of various lands
which hosted Christianity in its early period. The main stem of
Christianity, however, which took care of and nurtured the development
of Christian beliefs and philosophy in its early formative part was of
Jewish stock. Jewish influence remained predominant throughout the early
part of Christian history. The disciples of Jesus who learnt and
understood Christianity directly from Jesus and witnessed it in the form
of his life, belonged to this stock. They were the primary custodians
of Christianity with deeply embedded roots in the holy soil of Jesus’
instructions and way of life. It was they who witnessed the Crucifixion
and had seen Jesus survive from his attempted murder.
Early
Christians appear to have been fundamentally divided over both the
nature of Jesus and whether to adhere to the Mosaic Law or not. In the
second phase of Christian development, St. Paul acquired the most
pivotal character in giving Christianity a new philosophy and ideology.
There were fundamental differences of opinion between Paul and James the
Righteous. While James looked after the Jerusalem Church, Paul was
preaching in the West, particularly to the gentiles. The Western Church
evolved along Pauline doctrinal lines, whereas the Church in Jerusalem
developed along monotheistic teachings.
One offshoot of James’ ministry were the Ebionites, a sect whose name derives from the Hebrew ebionim
meaning ‘the meek’ or ‘the poor’. They were the Jewish Christians, for
whom Jesus took on the mantle of Messiah and not that of the ‘Son of
God’. They followed the Mosaic law with great zeal, and had their own
Gospel known in various contexts as the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, ‘Gospel
of the Ebionites’ or the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’. Here is a
description of the Ebionites drawn from various sources.
In his book The History of the Church written in the 4th century AD in Ceasaraea, Eusebius mentions the Ebionites in Book 3, Vespasian to Trajan.
He mocks their views, saying that their name comes from their poor and
mean opinion of Jesus. The Ebionites regarded Jesus as mortal and
esteemed him as righteous through the growth of his character. As Jews,
they observed the Sabbath; every detail of the Law, and did not accept
the Pauline idea of salvation through faith alone. He also talks of
another group of Ebionites who accepted the virgin birth and the Holy
Spirit, but refused to accept Jesus’ pre-existence as ‘God the Word and
Wisdom’. They followed a ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ which could possibly
have been St. Matthew’s Gospel. They observed the Sabbath and the Jewish
system, but celebrated the resurrection.1
In his book describing the background
of the Ebionites, R Eisenman in The Dead Sea Scrolls
Uncovered writes that James (the ‘Zaddik’ or ‘Zadok’, meaning Righteous)
was the leader of the Jerusalem Church in the middle of the first century (40–60
AD approx.) The branch which was retrospectively called Jewish Christianity
in Palestine. The Ebionites developed from this branch.2
The Community who followed James
were known as ‘the Poor’, (Galatians 2:10, James 2:3–5) a designation mentioned
both in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In many ways,
Eisenman feels that the Ebionites were similar to the authors of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. They honoured James the Righteous, and believed Jesus to be their
mortal Messiah, while Paul had become an Apostate for
the Law. They observed the Law and the Sabbath with great zeal.
According to Baigent,
Leigh and Lincoln in The Messianic Legacy, the source of the original
teachings of the Ebionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, Mandeans,
Nestorians and Elkasites has been described as the Nazarene philosophy.
They refer to Nazarene thought as:
‘An
orientation towards Jesus and his teachings which derives ultimately
from the original Nazarene position, as articulated by Jesus himself,
then propagated by James, Jude or Judas Thomas and their immediate
entourage.’ Their beliefs were:
- strict adherence to the Mosaic Law
- recognition of Jesus as Messiah
- belief in the normal human birth of Jesus
- hostility towards Pauline views
There is a collection
of Arabic manuscripts kept in a library in Istanbul which contains
quotes from a 5th or 6th Century text ascribed to the ‘al-nasara’,
written in Syriac and found in a monastery in Khuzistan in south-west
Iran near the Iraq border. It reflects the views of the Nazarene
hierarchy escaping from Jerusalem after the destruction in 66 AD. It
refers to Jesus as a human being and stresses the Judaic Law. Paul’s
followers ‘abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the
religious doctrines of the Romans.’4
Of
all the various doctrines which evolved during the formative stages of
Christianity, only those who believed in the Nazarene philosophy can
justifiably be given preference. These early Christians were taught the
meaning of Christianity by Jesus himself.
Evidently St. Paul and his
school do not belong there. In fact, from the time of St. Paul onwards,
as Christianity spread to alien lands and pagan faiths within the Roman
Empire, it began to be powerfully influenced and bent by the cultures
and mythologies prevalent in those lands and went further away from its
nascent purity. St. Paul did his bit in influencing the deterioration of
the Christian thought by introducing his own brand of mysticism. He was
neither of Jewish stock nor did he have any direct contact with Jesus,
except through his claimed vision. He was already, it seems, under the
powerful influence of the alien cultures.
Apparently
there were two options available to St. Paul, either to fight the
strenuous battles against a world of superstitions, myths and legends
prevalent in the lands of the Roman Empire from times immemorial or to
give in to them and let Christianity change to suit their requirements
and ambitions. This gave them the message that Christianity was not
essentially different from their legends and myths. He found the
adoption of the second option far more profitable and convenient and let
Christianity change to suit the ambitions and philosophies popular in
the gentile world.
This
strategy worked well in as much as it gained a great number of converts
to the new faith which otherwise would not have been easily available.
But at what cost. Unfortunately, it ended up only in an unholy
competition between noble Christian values and pagan myths. What St.
Paul changed was only the names of the pagan gods and replaced them with
Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost. It was not him in fact who
invented the myth of Trinity and introduced it to the pagan world in the
name of Christianity, on the contrary he borrowed the myth of the
Trinity from pagan mythology and bonded it to Christianity. From then on
it was the same old paganism but with new names and new faces.
Pauline
Christianity, therefore, did not succeed in changing the doctrines,
myths and superstitions of the pagan world but only ended in changing
Christianity in accordance with them. If the mountain did not respond to
his call, he decided to go to the mountain.
Of course it is anybody’s
prerogative to choose between Pauline Christianity and that of James the
Righteous and other early leaders of Christianity who were the
disciples of Jesus Christ himself. But here we want to establish the
point that the main stock of Christianity continued to develop along
unitarian lines and kept itself aloof from the later innovations which
generated the rigmarole and complexities of Christian dogmas such as the
godhead of Jesus as the Son, the Trinity, Inherited Sin, Redemption,
physical revival of Jesus, etc. The views of the early leaders of the
Church, among whom James the Righteous is prominent, were simple and
honest and had no internal contradictions or paradoxes hiding behind a
smoke screen of mystery. A study of the history of Unitarianism in
Christianity establishes beyond question the fact that the Unity of God,
uncomplicated by the slogan of Trinity, remained the official doctrine
of the true Church of Christ in its pristine purity.
Please
remember that this short treatise is not an attempt to convert
Christians to any faith other than that of Christ. It is simply a
genuine effort to invite the Christians back to the pure unadulterated
faith and practice of Jesus himself. It is a sincere attempt to revert
the fiction back to the facts of Christianity. Facts that are certainly
as beautiful as they are realistic and satisfy both the head and the
heart.
For almost two
thousand years, it is not the legends woven around the reality of Jesus
Christ that has kept Christianity together and has helped it to survive
the challenges of reason and ever growing enlightenment borne out of
scientific progress, nor is its survival due to the mystic belief of
Trinity. What has held the truth and essence of Christianity together is
the beauty of the person and the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the
divine conduct and not the divine person of Jesus that has been so
beautiful to adhere to. It was the suffering, patience and perseverance
for the sake of noble ideals and his bold upright rejection of all
despotic attempts to make him change his principles that is the real
backbone of Christianity. It is still as beautiful and as loveable today
as it was ever before. It has influenced so powerfully the Christian
minds and hearts that they remain bonded to Jesus and would much rather
shut their eyes to logical discrepancies than to break away from him.
His
real greatness lies in the fact that he transcended and conquered the
forces of darkness that had conspired to vanquish him despite being a
frail human being and no more than a human being. That victory of Jesus
is something to be shared with pride by the children of Adam. As we see
it from the Muslim vantage point, he is one of the most noble progeny of
Adam who taught humanity by his example of perseverance in the face of
extreme suffering and pain. Not to surrender but to remain steadfast in
the teeth of extreme trial was the noblest achievement of Jesus. It was
his life of suffering and pain that redeemed humanity and made him
conquer death. If he had accepted death voluntarily, it would have been
tantamount to an attempt to escape his state of suffering. How can one
conceive this to be an act of bravery. Even the act of those who commit
suicide, under extreme pressure, is taken to be a mere act of cowardice.
To share suffering in life is far better than to escape suffering
through death. Hence the concept of the supreme sacrifice of Jesus by
accepting death for the sake of humanity is hollow sentimality with no
substance in it.
The
greatness of Jesus, we again insist, lay in his supreme sacrifice during
his lifetime. All his life, he defied the temptations to give in and
exchange a life of suffering with that of ease and comfort. Day in, day
out he confronted death but refused to give in and lived for the sake of
the sinful to bring them to life. He conquered death not by
surrendering himself to death, but by refusing to bow down to it. He
defeated it roundly and emerged from its clutches where a lesser man
would have perished. Thus he proved his truth and the truth of his word
beyond a shadow of doubt. That is how we see Jesus and that is why we
love him so. His voice was the voice of God and not the voice of his own
ambitions. He said what he was commissioned to say, neither more nor
less than what God had told him to say. He worshipped God throughout his
life and worshipped Him alone and never did he require any mortal to
bow before himself or before his mother or the Holy Ghost. This is the
reality of Jesus to which we invite the Christians of all denomination
and faiths to return.
We
believe in the continuity and universality of religions. That is why
Islam lays such emphasis on the institution of Prophethood as a
universal phenomenon. Which means that prophets have to be accepted in
their totality. Rejection of one out of the community of prophets would
be tantamount to rejection of all because, in fact, one bows to the
prophets only in view of their hailing from the same source. In this
context, the term ‘continuity’ should be understood as something that is
similar but not exactly like the evolution of life. We believe in the
progressiveness of the message, advancing in step with general human
progress in all spheres of human activity. It appears that the earlier
forms of revealed religions, though possessing the same fundamental
teachings, covered relatively smaller areas of detailed instruction.
That is to say, a smaller number of do’s and don’ts. These then
gradually grew into a larger number of imperatives and prohibitions
covering a wider field of human activity. Also, it appears that
religions belonging to the ancient civilizations addressed themselves to
comparatively smaller audience belonging to particular tribes or clans
or regions. Their messages were confined to the requirements of the
time. They could be more aptly described as tribal, clannish or national
religions. The case of the Children of Israel and Judaic teachings is a
fitting illustration to prove the point.
- a progressive elaboration and comparative perfection of the teachings.
- a progressive shift from smaller to larger denominations.
Continuity
does not mean that the same religion that was revealed to Adam
continued to address mankind and underwent a gradual progressive change,
widening its field of instruction and address. What is meant is that in
different parts of the world, where different civilizations took root
and flourished, Divine revelations gave birth to such religions with
corresponding social developments of man in those parts of the world.
All of these religions, however, were developing in the same general
direction.
Of
all such religious denominations, we believe the one in the middle east
was being nurtured and cultured to give birth to such major religions
as would serve the main stem of religious evolution in the world. This
is quite evident from a study of religious history. Judaism followed by
Christianity followed by Islam, clearly indicates the direction of the
evolution of religious teachings. Among these religions, the progression
of teachings can easily be traced back and forth and is found to be
deeply interrelated. It is highly important, therefore, to understand
this grand scheme of things which was to result and did result in the
consummation of these teachings in the form of a universal religion,
that is Islam.
In this
context it is in the interest of the Jews to seriously and without
prejudice try to understand the importance of Jesus Christ. Having
failed to recognise him, the case of the Jews is like so many animal
species buried deep in the history of evolution, no longer playing any
vital role in the evolving tree of life nearing its summit. As such, it
remains only as a remnant of history but still continuing to survive in
its own narrow sphere of existence.
Again
the case of the Christians is similar to that of the Jews, only they
stand a step ahead of them, closer to Islam in the chronological order.
Most importantly, however, those deviations from the path of Jesus
Christ into a decadent course which was originally set for them by St.
Paul has virtually led them even farther away from Islam than the Jews.
The Jews, after more than four thousand years of their existence, have
at least learnt the lesson of Unity which is vital for the spiritual
life of any religion. Yet despite this closeness to Islam in the basic
doctrines, there are other factors which make the Jews even more adamant
in refusing to accept Islam in large numbers.
This
study leaves me to believe that unless the Jews develop that frame of
mind and attitude which is a requisite for the understanding of Christ,
despite their doctrinal similarities, they will remain farther apart
from Islam than the Christians. They have missed a most vital link, that
is Jesus Christ, between them and the advent of Prophet Muhammad, peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him. This denial of truth has hardened
them to such a degree that they are not psychologically prepared to
accept any new message. They continue to wait for Christ, while Christ
has come and gone. Having failed to recognise him once, they are far
less likely to recognise him again during his second advent. They are
destined, it seems, to be waiting for the Christ of their dreams
eternally.
It was
Christ who was to prepare the pathway to the following higher order
religion which is Islam. This statement should not be taken too rigidly.
We are not suggesting that the Jews should first accept Christianity
and then take the next step into Islam. It would be too naive a view of
religious manifestations as they take place. What we are trying to point
out is that a people who have rejected a prophet or a messenger, who
was not just an ordinary prophet but was to play a very important role
in the task of mental and spiritual training of that people, do so only
when they are spiritually and psychologically ill. Unless this malady is
cured and that distorted attitude towards truth is rectified, they are
less likely to follow a prophet who happens to be placed beyond the link
they have already missed.
As
far as the Christian attitude is concerned, they can only be led to the
truth of Prophet Muhammad, if they return to the truth and reality of
Jesus Christ. He was not only the way to God, but also like all the
other prophets was the way to the prophet who was destined to follow
him.
Jesus was only
the middle link in the parable of vineyard. The last consummate
representation of God was yet to come. Therefore, unless the Christians
return from the false, imaginary and mythical image of Jesus Christ to
the much loftier and nobler reality of their holy master, they cannot be
directed on to the path that connected him with Prophet Muhammad, peace
and blessing of Allah be upon him.
Prophet
Muhammad was a reality and not a fiction and it is only realities which
lead to other realities. Therefore, it would be the fact of Christ,
rather than the fiction he has been turned into, which would bless
Christians to recognise the truth of Prophet Muhammad.
air is foul, and foul is fair.’3
REFERENCES
- Eusebius, The History of the Church pages 90–91, (Penguin 1989)
- The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, R. Eisenman and M. Wise, pg 186, (Element Books, 1992)
- Ibid. pg 233–34
- The Messianic Legacy. M. Baigent, R. Leigh, H. Lincoln, pg 135–138 (Corgi Books)
No comments:
Post a Comment