Do you not know that the kingdom of the heavens and Earth belongs to God, and that, besides God, you have no protector and no helper? (Surat al-Baqara: 107)
6 Ekim 2013 Pazar
7 Mart 2013 Perşembe
Christians Opposed to the Trinity from Nicaea to the Present Day
Throughout Christian history, many Christian sects have rejected belief in the trinity, either in whole or in part. And, because of this, they have historically encountered severe repression in the form of exile, excommunication, burning at the stake, and torture unto death. However, such oppression has not succeeded in erasing them from the pages of history. Most of them remained loyal to their beliefs and never denied the fact that there is only One God. The Arians, which we looked at in some detail earlier, were the fore-runners of the numerous anti-trinitarian Christians. Many more groups then emerged in their wake.
The Anti-Trinitarians
One anti-trinitarian movement that appeared in the wake of Arius was the Celtic Church of Ireland. Although totally isolated from continental Europe, this Church was built and developed along Arian lines. Until 664, when the Catholic Church finally secured official dominion over the Celtic Church, belief in the trinity was foreign to Ireland.
One very important feature of the Irish Church ran parallel to Nazarean teachings: loyalty to Jewish sources. The Celtic Church believed that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) adhered scrupulously to Judaic rules, and thus attached great importance to the Old Testament.78So powerful was this tendency that it continued even after its church came under Roman dominion. In 754, several Catholic priests complained that Irish priests attached no importance to the Church's holy scriptures and rejected the writings and ignored the Council's decisions.79However, this resistance was soon broken. Over the course of a long campaign that began in the fourth century, the Catholic Church finally eliminated all of those had turned onto a false path. Yet these movements just described rejected the superstitious teachings that deified Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and instead, preached faith in God as the One and Only. As a result, the Catholic Church became western world's greatest religious authority.
Councils have constituted turning points in Christian history. Like Nicaea, Constantinople, and Whitby, the 1870 Vatican Council, which lasted around a year, had a major role in Catholic thought assuming its present form.
|
Orthodox and Protestant Churches
The Catholic Church's control of the Christian world was rocked by an internal division in the ninth century. For a long time, the Eastern Churches, affiliated to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, had disagreed with the Catholic Church. Finally, they broke away from Rome. This conflict, which was actually political in origin, had emerged following the division of the Roman Empire into eastern (Greek) and western (Latin) sections. The various disagreements between the two sides became a permanent schism when the Roman Church consecrated the Holy Roman Empire. The most distinguishing of the many differences between the two sides is that the Roman Church used Latin as its liturgical language, while the Eastern Churches used Greek.
After breaking with Rome, the Eastern churches, also known as the Orthodox churches, could not establish any internal hierarchy. The Patriarch of Constantinople was always regarded as senior, but the others were independent entities. Furthermore, new divisions gradually emerged and national Churches were formed, such as the Armenian, Greek, Bulgar, Serb, and Russian national churches.
 |
The Catholic Church maintained its hegemony in Europe until the sixteenth century, when the German priest Martin Luther (d. 1546) shattered that hegemony by launching the Protestant movement. Developed first under the leadership of Luther and then of such priests as John Calvin (d. 1564) and Huldreich Zwingli (d. 1531), it sparked off a huge rebellion against the Church of Rome and papal authority. For over a century, Europe was the scene of endless bloody wars between Catholics and Protestants. Behind these wars, which were superficially religious, lay political calculations and conflicts of interest between European monarchs who wanted to be free of the papacy and its related taxes and those who sought to maintain the status quo. The bloodiest squaring of accounts between the two sides, the Thirty Years War (1618-48), caused the deaths of more than a third of the European population. The end result was a permanent mutual understanding that the new order, established under the Treaty of Westphalia and signed at the end of the Thirty Years War, was now the norm. And so it has remained, largely unchanged, ever since.
After rejecting papal authority, however, the Protestants were unable to replace it with another authority. Thus, Protestantism developed as a dispersed and liberal religion without a central hierarchical structure. Just about every country established its own national church, and many sects and movements emerged over time. As a result, today there are hundreds of forms of Protestantism and churches. Most of these are active in northern Europe and the United States.
The emergence of Protestantism was also important as regards anti-trinitarian movements. After their overthrow of papal authority, Christians were now able to read and interpret the Good Book for themselves. The Catholic Church had never allowed this freedom to its members. As a result of this, some Protestants came to realize that there was no New Testament foundation for the trinity, which constituted the basis of Catholic belief. Indeed, it was evident that some passages rejected that belief. God is described as the One and Only in these passages, and belief in the Three in One had no place in the fundamental logic of the New Testament.
A very few Protestants therefore rejected the trinity. This gave rise to the Unitarian Church.
 |
Christians Who Support Monotheism
Like John Calvin (1509-64) and Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) , Martin Luther (1483-1546) also played an important part in the emergence of Protestantism.
|
Following the Protestant Reformation, Christians began reading the New Testament independently of Catholic beliefs. The first modern anti-trinitarian Christian movement developed in Italy. Founded by Lelio Socinus (d. 1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (d. 1604), the movement took the name Socinianism, from the surnames of its two founders, and spread by means of secret meetings. The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes their beliefs as follows:
[According to the Socinians] that there was no Trinity; that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and holy spirit; that His Death and Passion were not undergone to bring about our redemption.80
The Socinians were oppressed, and Rome lost no time in excommunicating the two founders. Fausto Socianus said: "The holiness of Prophet Jesus' life, the revelation of God, will naturally be different to that of other people. He possessed divine vision and divine inspiration, but certainly was not a creator. He was equipped with a matchless authority and sent to humanity with a duty to discharge."81Socianus maintained that God had only one essence and that it was irrational to speak in terms of a trinity. Socinian teachings spread as far as England, a development that caused Rome great unease, an unease expressed by the Union of Norwegian Bishops:
Socinianism, turned from the true path by anti-Trinitarians and neo-Arianists who, it is feared, will destroy Christianity, is corrupting the thoughts of Christians."82
At the same time, Michael Servetus (d. 1553), a Spanish theologian and physician, who propagated similar ideas, was burned at the stake by Calvin because of his rejection of the trinity. As he was burned, his anti-trinity book was hung round his neck. Servetus maintained that Christianity has been corrupted at the Council of Nicaea, and wrote that it was necessary to return to pre-Council of Nicaea sources. Attacks aimed at the Socinians began in 1638. Their college in Rakow was closed, and many adherents were burned alive.
 |
The Unitarian movement, which assumed the mantle of the Socinians, was born in Transylvania towards the end of the sixteenth century, later spread all over Europe and particularly in Poland. Its emergence is described in the following terms on a Unitarian church website:
Early Christians held a variety of beliefs about Jesus, including the belief that he was not divine but Wayshower. However the doctrine of the Trinity – God as Father, Son and Holy Ghost – was enforced all those who believed differently were denounced as heretics. Sixteenth century, Christian humanists studied the Bible closely and could not find the Trinity in the scriptures. They affirmed – as did Jesus, according to the Gospels – the unity, or oneness, of God. Hence they acquired the name Unitarian. Unitarians preached and organized churches according to their own rational convictions in the face of overwhelming orthodox opposition and persecution. They reacted by advocating religious freedom for all. Since "faith is the gift of God," people should not be forced to adhere to a faith they did not choose.83
A document known as the Racovian Catechism, which was published by Polish Unitarian priests and laid special emphasis on the idea of the One God, became one of the movement's most important texts. Belief in the atonement of sins was rejected in the catechism, which also said:
The opinion of those who attribute divinity to Jesus Christ is not only repugnant to right reason but likewise to the Holy Scriptures, and they are in gross error who believe that not only Father but also the Son and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one deity… God is… absolutely One, and therefore it is a downright contradiction for one to generate another if they are three independent persons... Always till the times of the Nicene Council and some time later as appears by the writings of those who lived then, the Father... alone was acknowledged for the true God, and those who were of the contrary mind… were accounted heretics…84
One of the most infamous inquisitions, on account of its decisions and political and religious influence, was the Roman Inquisition established by Pope Paul III in 1542. For many years, this inquisition fought all proponents of non-Catholic views, especially Calvinists and Lutherans.
|
The Unitarians were particularly influential in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. Unitarian churches were first established in England and then in the United States. These people, who believed that not only Christians but all people can achieve salvation if they believe in God, described themselves as Universalists. The Unitarian and Universalist churches, which developed separately, merged in 1961. The New Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the common beliefs of the Unitarian Churches thus:
Jewish religious teacher, prophet, regarded by the Unitarians as an example to follow, a master of religious and ethical life in teaching and acting... The Bible is a collection of man-created writings, including teachings of Jewish and Christian teachers, historical accounting and literature. These works were inspired by God but we are not to forget that this inspiration was grasped by those who lived long-long time ago in a certain historical time and place. This is why each writing has the marks of a cultural trend from ancient times, with that characteristic world-view, containing precious intuitive insight but mistakes too. This is why the Unitarian theology follows and accepts the results of the scientific criticism of the Bible in adopting its ethics in life and philosophy.85
In short, Unitarians take Prophet Jesus (pbuh) for what he actually was: a Jewish prophet who as God's son only in a figurative sense. The bases of Unitarian belief are described in the following terms on one website:
The basic tenets of Unitarian belief consist of the oneness of God, love of God and human beings, and eternal life … They respect the memory of Prophet Jesus, but deny his divinity and do not regard him as infallible. They regard the Christian scriptures as a document of human experience, but maintain that since the authors were human they were capable of error … They agree that God has sent prophets at all times in order to show people the true path. They regard the Messiah Jesus as the greatest of these …86
Unitarians express their ideas about Prophet Jesus (pbuh) on their own sites as follows:
He was, and still is for many UU's, an exemplar... Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as a product of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superceded it.87
Unitarians reject one part of traditional Christianity and base their own beliefs on proper moral values, reason, common sense, and the oneness of God. They describe their beliefs thus on their websites:
In the first place, we believe in the doctrine of God's UNITY, or that there is One God, and One only. To this truth we give infinite importance, and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong… We do… protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity...88
 |
However, some of the views now propounded under the name of Unitarianism contain elements that are incompatible with God and His revelation. Some Unitarians possess a humanist conception of religion, in which religious rules and worship are eliminated. Some do not believe in miracles, such as the virgin birth, or that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) actually performed miracles. This is another deviation away from Divine truth. Unitarians are not presented in this book as a community that represents true Christianity as it was at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh); the author merely cites their beliefs concerning the trinity and the atonement of sins. Other of their beliefs, however, conflict with what the Qur'an teaches.
The Jehovah's Witnesses
The Jehovah's Witnesses also reject belief in the trinity. Although they agree with traditional Christianity in many areas, their rejection of the trinity has caused many Christians to view them as non-Christians, despite their obvious Judeo-Christian basis.
According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, belief in the trinity is a non-Biblical belief. They say that if people read the Bible without any preconceived notions, they will never encounter any such idea, for this idea was added long after Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) had been raised to God's presence. Although this sect resembles Judaism in terms of its conception of God, their beliefs concerning Prophet Jesus (pbuh) distinguish them from it. The Jehovah's Witnesses stress that they are the real Christians and that all others are all in error:
The teachings of the Bible about God and his purposes are clear, easy to understand, and reasonable. But the teachings of Christendom's churches are not. Worse, they contradict the Bible... Also, Christendom's Trinity doctrine portrays God as some mysterious three-in-one God. But that teaching is not found in the Bible either.90
According to Jehovah's Witness statistics for 2001, this sect has approximately 6 million members.
Islam strengthened the Unitarian Church
When we look at how the Unitarian Church gained strength, we encounter a most interesting connection: the influence of the Ottoman Empire. In Transylvania, which was part of the Ottoman territories in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, monotheistic beliefs grew very powerful. In a sermon entitled "Islam, the US, and Yeats' Dilemma," Jack Donovan, a priest in the Florida Unitarian Church, emphasizes this development:
In Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania, some Reform Protestant Christians began asserting as a matter of faith, "God is one. There is no god but God." Dangerous heresy in Christendom in those days. Where did dead-defying statement come from?... In 1520s and '30s, when Protestantism was still very new and trinitarian, the Islamic Ottoman Empire conquered Croatia, Hungary, and Transylvania.91
As expressed by many historians and Unitarian clergy, the reason why this monotheistic sect located in Ottoman territories gained in strength was because Islam brought a climate of tolerance. Susan Ritchie of the North Unitarian Universalist Church emphasizes this fact in a sermon entitled The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology:
Most moderate international historians accept not only that the political protection of the Ottomans allowed for the development of progressive Protestantisms, but also that the infamous permissiveness of Ottoman administrative practice regarding local customs and religions must have had some influence with regards to the issue of toleration.92
Islam's powerful monotheism was an enormous guarantee for anti-trinitarian Christians, for within the Ottoman Empire they could express their opinions freely, enjoy official tolerance, establish their own churches, and reinforce the Christian monotheistic tradition.
The links between Islam and the Unitarian Church have attracted the interest of researchers for hundreds of years. For example, in his The Hungarian Protestant Reformation in the Sixteenth Century under the Ottoman Impact, Alexander Sándor Unghváry concentrates on the importance attached to Islam by Servetus, an earlier proponent of monotheism.93In his work, based on the relationship between Socianism and Islam, Mathurin Veyssiére de la Croze claims that the Unitarians of Transylvania accepted the similarity between the oneness of God as taught by Unitarianism and that taught in the Qur'an.94
Unitarian clergyman Jack Donovan also draws attention to these matters in a sermon:
Two Islamic teachings would have become common knowledge and would have been much noted. One, the words of the daily call to prayer sung from the minarets to the general public: "God is One. There is no god but God. There is no god but God." And two, the explicit requirement of the Quran, emphasized by Muhammad, that respect and tolerance be given to all religions because each is a response to God. When those teachings are applied to the gospel of Jesus, you get 16th century Unitarianism. It is my hypothesis that our tradition has a 450 year old debt to Islam for a center we share in common.95
Mark D. Morrison-Reed of the Toronto Unitarian Church also describes Islam in a sermon entitled The Islamic Connection:
Houston Smith writes that Islam's "innovation was to remove idols from the religious scene and focus the divine on a single invisible God for everyone."[p. 236- Houston Smith, The World's Religions] Unlike Christianity Islam is unmistakably monotheistic, and unlike Judaism was not confined to one people. We might begin any effort to connect with Islam with this: acknowledge that we share common historical ground in this intuition about and understand of God's singularity. In the Middle Ages it was Islam tolerance that allowed a cultural bridge between Christianity and Islam to develop. This Spanish Renaissance influenced a person we claim as our intellectual forebear, Michael Servetus. Servetus was born in 1511 in northern Spain and while we know some of the details and influence upon his life, we don't know exactly how his ideas developed or what precipitated the publishing in 1531 of his book On the Errors of the Trinity… While Islam had created the political and intellectual conditions that contributed to the emerging of Servetus' ideas in the West, it was also responsible for the political conditions that allowed Unitarianism to germinate, blossom and spread in eastern Europe… In a sense we are indebted to Islam. For me that suggest that we need to stop viewing Islam as something foreign and incomprehensible. Instead, it is time to recognize that not only are we historically connected but that we share some common values, as well.96
These statements of different Uniterian clergymen reveal the climate of tolerance in Ottoman territories and the common values shared by these two revealed religions.
FOOTNOTES
78. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, s. 157
79. Leslie Hardinge. The Celtic Church in Britain. S.P.C.K. for the Church Historical Society, London, 1972. s. 37
80. "Socinianism". The Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New Advent, Inc. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm)
81. Bir İslam Peygamberi, Hz. İsa (as), Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim, 3. Baskı, İnsan Yayınları, s. 140
82. Bir İslam Peygamberi, Hz. İsa (as), Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim, s. 139, Anti-Trinitarian Biographies, A. Wallace, Introduction, s. 79,
83. Unitarian Community Victoria, http://www.anzua.org/ucv/
84. Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim and Ahmad Thomson, Jesus Prophet of Islam, s. 187-188
85. "Unitarians". The New Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15154b.htm
86. "Unitaryenizm", http://dunyadinleri.com/unitaryen.html
87. Unitarian Community Victoria, http://www.anzua.org/ucv/
88. Unitarian Christianity, William Ellery Channing, http://www.uuchristian.org/channing/unitarianchristianity.htm
89. Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim and Ahmad Thomson, Jesus Prophet of Islam, s. 167
90. Yehova Şahitleri resmi Web sayfası, "Christendom Has Betrayed God and the Bible", http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/index.htm
91. Jack Donovan, "Islam, US, and Yeats' Dilemma", http://www.uuf.org/Sermon01/011104sIslam,Us,andYeats'Dilemma.htm
92. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, Journal of Liberal Religion Summer 2002, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
93. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
94. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
95. Ritchie, "The Promise of Postmodernism.
96. Mark D. Morrison-Reed, The Islamic Connection, http://www.firstunitariantoronto.org/Sermons/Th_%20Islamic_Connection.htm
79. Leslie Hardinge. The Celtic Church in Britain. S.P.C.K. for the Church Historical Society, London, 1972. s. 37
80. "Socinianism". The Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New Advent, Inc. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm)
81. Bir İslam Peygamberi, Hz. İsa (as), Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim, 3. Baskı, İnsan Yayınları, s. 140
82. Bir İslam Peygamberi, Hz. İsa (as), Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim, s. 139, Anti-Trinitarian Biographies, A. Wallace, Introduction, s. 79,
83. Unitarian Community Victoria, http://www.anzua.org/ucv/
84. Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim and Ahmad Thomson, Jesus Prophet of Islam, s. 187-188
85. "Unitarians". The New Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15154b.htm
86. "Unitaryenizm", http://dunyadinleri.com/unitaryen.html
87. Unitarian Community Victoria, http://www.anzua.org/ucv/
88. Unitarian Christianity, William Ellery Channing, http://www.uuchristian.org/channing/unitarianchristianity.htm
89. Muhammed Ata'ur Rahim and Ahmad Thomson, Jesus Prophet of Islam, s. 167
90. Yehova Şahitleri resmi Web sayfası, "Christendom Has Betrayed God and the Bible", http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/index.htm
91. Jack Donovan, "Islam, US, and Yeats' Dilemma", http://www.uuf.org/Sermon01/011104sIslam,Us,andYeats'Dilemma.htm
92. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, Journal of Liberal Religion Summer 2002, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
93. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
94. Susan Ritchie, The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitarian Universalist Theology, http://www.nuuc.org/academic.html
95. Ritchie, "The Promise of Postmodernism.
96. Mark D. Morrison-Reed, The Islamic Connection, http://www.firstunitariantoronto.org/Sermons/Th_%20Islamic_Connection.htm
The word "son" in the New Testament was not used to support the Trinity
At the heart of the belief in the trinity lies the erroneous belief that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God. (Surely God is beyond that!) However, when one examines how and why son was used when Christianity was born and in earlier periods, a very different picture emerges.
Son is used to refer to Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in four very different ways in the New Testament: the son of Mary, the son of David, the son of man, and the son of God.
The term son of Mary refers to the fact that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was physically born through by Mary, and the son of David denotes his lineage.
The term the son of man is of enormous importance, both from the point of view of how he described himself and how those around him regarded him. In fact, this term appears more frequently in the New Testament than the Messiah and the son of God. The term the son of man is unique to Jewish theology and is used far more in the Old Testament, particularly in the Book of Psalms. It refers directly to human beings and is a very familiar expression. For instance, it is used 90 times in reference to Prophet Ezekiel (pbuh), who is certainly depicted as a mortal human being.
The Aramaic equivalent of this term, bar nash(a), was used for everyone also at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh). However, the New Testament term the son of man is not used for everyone, as in Judaic scriptures, but is employed many times to refer to Prophet Jesus (pbuh).48The term the son of man is used 69 times in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and 13 times in John. In only one place it is used for humanity in general (Hebrews, 2:6-8). The description is used several times both regarding and by Prophet Jesus (pbuh), in the sense of I. Some of these passages are as follows:
And they were all amazed at the greatness of God. While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples: "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." (Luke, 9:43-44)For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. (Luke, 11:30)We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. (Luke, 18:31-32)While he [Jesus] was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him: "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke, 22:47-48)
As stated above, the term the son of man was used by the first Christians in the sense of human being, for most of the first Christians were Jewish and had always used this term in that sense. Its use in the Old Testament supports that view and reveals that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was a human being created by God and in need of His mercy.
The New Testament's expression the son of God constitutes one of the so-called foundations of trinitarianism. This interpretation has led to centuries of debate in the Christian world, however. In fact, every researcher familiar with Jewish culture and language at that time has stated that the expression is metaphorical. The widespread view is this: The son of God was a metaphorical term already in wide use in Jewish society and frequently used to refer to important individuals.
In 1977, seven biblical experts including Anglican theologians published The Myth of God Incarnate, which provoked considerable interest. In the foreword, editor John Hick, wrote:
The New Testament's expression the son of God constitutes one of the so-called foundations of trinitarianism. This interpretation has led to centuries of debate in the Christian world, however. In fact, every researcher familiar with Jewish culture and language at that time has stated that the expression is metaphorical. The widespread view is this: The son of God was a metaphorical term already in wide use in Jewish society and frequently used to refer to important individuals.
In 1977, seven biblical experts including Anglican theologians published The Myth of God Incarnate, which provoked considerable interest. In the foreword, editor John Hick, wrote:
The authors of this book are agreed on the need for a major religious development to take place in this final period of the 20th century. This need stems primarily from an increase in information concerning the origins of Christianity. Moreover, it depends on the acceptance of Prophet Jesus as a human being sent by God with a special duty and for a holy purpose. And it is based on accepting that the belief that Prophet Jesus was the incarnation of God and that he is the second element in the Trinity is a poetic and mythological expression of what Prophet Jesus means to us.49
Throughout the book, Hick concentrates on the fact that the term the son of God is a belief put forward after Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) death, one that he never communicated himself.50
Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him… [I]t is extremely unlikely that the historical Jesus thought of himself in any such way. Indeed he would probably have rejected the idea as blasphemous; one of the sayings attributed to him is, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone' (Mark, 10.18). Of course no statements about what Jesus did or did not say or think can be made with certainty. But such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate.51
Among the Jews of that time, the son of God had the metaphorical meaning of belonging to God. Someone referred to in this way was considered close to God, one who served Him with all his heart, and who lived the kind of life that would be pleasing to Him. It never meant that the person in question possessed attributes resembling or equivalent to His, or implied any divine status. (Surely God is beyond that!) Indeed, there was no room for such a belief in Judaism.
Therefore, the first Christians may have used this term to express their respect for Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and their belief that he was His servant and close to God. In fact, many Christian theologians say that the term the son of God was given to him by his followers to honor and praise him. Moreover, they stress that it is a metaphor.
The title son was a particular form of expression in Hebrew and was used, together with other concepts, to indicate that he had a particularly close relationship to something. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or inmate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of dead" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "son of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, were called "sons of God"..52
Dr. Mahmut Aydn of the 19 Mays University Theology Faculty in Turkey reports John Hicks' views on this subject in these terms:
This expression was already very widespread at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and was frequently used for important individuals. Therefore, his disciples adopted the son of God and used it to describe their leader: Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Accordingly, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was described as the son of God, just like the kings from the line of David and persons of religious and moral importance living in Jewish society. According to Hick, in Jewish thought those kings and important people who were awarded this title were never literally regarded as being God's son. Rather, they were honored by being regarded as such, and were revered and praised, solely on account of their personal characteristics. In other words, the title in question was never used in a literal sense in Jewish thought. The term son of God was used for people throughout Jewish history. The Messiah, for example, was regarded as an earthly king who would have to be descended from the line of Prophet David, regarded as the son of God… The followers of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) were able to adapt this term to him very easily. The way that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was seen as an entity with divine attributes is first of all the result of the culture in which he lived. Accordingly, at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), certain individuals with important characteristics were known as the son of God in the symbolic sense."53
After considering Hick's views in some detail, Aydn says this about the use of the term the son of God:
Neither Prophet Jesus (pbuh) himself ever suggested that he was divine, nor did the disciples ever ascribe to him any form of divinity or god-likeness. On the contrary, the idea of his divinity was put forward inside the first Christian community and gradually developed, assuming the nature of doctrine and dogma. That is because expressions regarding the divine sonship gradually left the Jewish context and entered that of Hellenistic Roman culture.54
P. M. Casey, a New Testament scholar and author of several books on the origins of early Christianity, says: "… Jesus could have been called a son of God by anyone who thought that he was a particularly righteous person."55He also draws attention to how, within the Jewish tradition, important individuals and events were referred to by mythological and metaphorical expressions, either individually or socially.56
 |
According to the concept of the Messiah in Jewish belief, the Messiah, a king, would be descended from the line of Prophet David (pbuh). The kings descended from that line were regarded as "the sons of God in the sense of being appointed to the rank of kingship…"57Those who believed in Prophet Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah may have seen nothing improper in referring to him by that term as an extension of this belief.
In The Historical Figure of Jesus, Sanders also notes that the Jews never understood the son of God in the literal sense. According to him, they used the term the sons of God in a metaphorical sense for both men and women and as a symbolic statement of one's devotion to God.58Sanders interprets the son of Godby the first Christians in the following way:
The early Christians, used "Son of God" of Jesus, but they did not think that he was a hybrid, half God, and half human. They regarded "Son of God" as a highdesignation … The first followers of Jesus, however, when they started calling him "Son of God," would have meant something much vaguer: a person standing in a special relationship to God, who chose him to accomplish a task of great importance. When Gentile converts started entering the new movement, they may have understood the title in light of the stories about Alexander the Great, or of their own mythology.59
As Sanders states, when Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) words and deeds passed from the Jews to the Gentiles, at that time the pagan world, this metaphorical expression began to acquire a new meaning and to be used to refer to his alleged divine status. In this way, by being regarded as the Messiah by the first Christians and as having a fully human identity, he gradually became divine. (Surely God is beyond that!) William C. Varner examines how the first Christians perceived this term:
It is also true that the New Testament calls each one who believes in Jesus a "son of God." (John, 1:12) How then does Jesus being the son of God differ from my being a son of God? Does the title son of God clearly express Jesus' deity, or do Christians read more into it than the Bible intends? The only way to answer these questions is to comprehend how the first hearers and readers of the Christian message understood the title when they encountered it. Who were those first hearers/readers? On the most basic level, some were Gentiles and others were Jews. Both already had the expression son of God in their first-century linguistic and cultural backgrounds.60
Proponents of the trinity do not accept the interpretation that the concept of the son of God in the New Testament is an expression of honor and respect, even though many New Testament statements clearly use it in that very sense. For example, the sons of God is used for all who have faith in God and follow Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) path:
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Lord in heaven. He causes His Sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors [of the Romans] doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Lord is perfect. (Matthew, 5:44-48)… those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans, 8:14)I will be God to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians, 6:18)Your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. (Luke, 6:35)
As is apparent from the examples above, the term "the sons of God" is used in many passages in the New Testament. Clearly, the meaning is the same as that in which it is used in Jewish culture in general: people who have taken God as their friend, who endeavor to draw close to Him, and who live by His laws. Indeed, Luke's Gospel mentions Prophet Adam (pbuh) as the son of God (Luke 3:38). The term the son of God is also used many times in the Old Testament. For example, son is used for the Israelite people in the Old Testament:
When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hosea, 11:1)
In another extract from the Old Testament the same expression is used to describe angels:
One day the sons of God [the angels] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. (Job, 1:6)
At the beginning of the Book of Exodus, Chapter 6, the term the sons of God is employed to describe humans multiplying on the face of the Earth. Other passages along these lines read: (Surely God is beyond all the expressions that follow!)
Then say to Pharaoh: "This is what the LORD says:' 'Israel is my firstborn son.'" (Exodus, 4:22)
They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel's Lord, and Ephraim is my firstborn son. (Jeremiah, 31:9)
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me [David], "You are My Son; today I have become your Lord." (Psalm, 2:7)
The term son of God is also used to refer to Prophet Solomon (pbuh) in the Old Testament. The relevant passage reads:
When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons [Solomon], and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for Me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Lord, and he will be My son. I will never take My love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. I will set him over My house and My kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever. (1 Chronicles, 17:11-14)
This holy individual referred to by the title "son of God" is the Prophet Solomon (pbuh), one of the sons of Prophet David (pbuh).
[David said to Solomon, "God said to me:] But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, [1] and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for My Name. He will be My son, and I will be his Lord. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. Now, my son, the LORD be with you, and may you have success and build the house of the LORD your God, as He said you would." (1 Chronicles, 22:9-11)
The same chapter continues:
Of all my sons—and the LORD has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. He said to me: "Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Lord. I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out My commands and laws, as is being done at this time." (1 Chronicles, 28:5-7)
All of the above statements make it clear that in the Jewish tradition, the son of God was used to refer to people who took God as their friend, who were sincere and devout. This is why it was used to refer to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Just as in the cases of Prophet Adam (pbuh) and Prophet Solomon (pbuh), it is a metaphorical term that stems from Jewish traditions. It was chosen by the first Christians, who were Jewish and who knew the Torah and lived by the Mosaic Law until becoming followers of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), to express Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) respect, devotion, and closeness to God.
Another piece of evidence showing that the term the son of God provides no basis for belief in the trinity concerns the use of the name of God in the New Testament. In his paper "Who is Jesus? Do the creeds tell us the truth about him?" Anthony Buzzard writes:
Thousands upon thousands of times in the Bible (someone has calculated over 11,000 times), God is described by personal pronouns in the singular (I, me, you, He, Him). These pronouns in all languages describe single persons, not three persons. There are thus thousands of verses which tell us that the "only true God" is One Person, not three. There is no place in the New Testament where the word "God" can be proved to mean "God-in-Three-Persons." The word God, therefore, in the Bible never means the Trinitarian God. This would immediately suggest that the Trinitarian God is foreign to the Bi.61
As we have emphasized throughout this chapter, the term son was widely employed in Jewish culture and bore no divine significance. Therefore, those who use it in the belief that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was literally the son of God, who claim that he has powers equal to God's (Surely God is beyond that!), are making a serious mistake in terms of Jewish belief. The Qur'an warns people several times not to use this term to ascribe divine status to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). This is a grave sin in the sight of God. For example:
Why Might the Christians Have Made This Groundless Claim?
Trinitarianism has been the cause of considerable debate from the time of its appearance right up to the present day. In fact, these arguments have spread to ever wider areas since the eighteenth century. Biblical researchers of that time first asked why belief in the trinity was not openly expressed in the Gospels, and then questioned under what conditions it appeared. Today, many theologians, scientists, researchers, writers, and independent Christian movements reject many traditional beliefs, particularly the trinity and the belief in the atonement for sins. Some of them, examples of which we shall consider in due course, adopt an Arianist understanding instead of trinitarian belief based upon the Bible and research into surviving works by the earliest Christians.
Following the decisions taken at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), belief in the trinity became Christianity's foundation stone, and refusal to accept it made one a heretic. Those who said that such an idea contradicted faith in a monotheistic God, who maintained that the trinity did not appear in the Gospels or who had reservations on the subject, were either silenced or pressured into acceptance. In his Articles of the Apostolic Creed, Theodore Zahn says that "the article of faith up until about 250 AD was, 'I believe in God, the Almighty'. Between 180 and 210 AD the word 'Father' was added 'the Almighty'. This was bitterly contested by a number of the leaders of the Church … since they regarded it an unthinkable sacrilege to add or subtract any word to the Scriptures."45
Duncan Heaster, known for his Biblical research, set out his views in a debate on the trinity in 1988:
I would suggest to you that the Trinity is a conception of God which is impossible to understand and which completely contradicts the clear teaching of the word of God. Can you understand a God who is one and yet three and three and yet one? Can you conceive of a son who existed before he was born? A son who is as old as his father? I suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity finds no place at all in the Word of God. There is no mention of the word trinity in the Bible, and it was introduced into Christianity, as most of us here will be aware, in the 3rd century A.D. … The word "God" occurs about 1,300 times in the New Testament, and in not one of those passages where the word "God" occurs is there any suggestion of a plurality of persons in the Godhead... But that God, I submit, is unknown to the pages of the Scriptures."46
Heaster's words are unequivocal, and many other scholars today express the same views. John Hick, for example, author of The Rainbow of Faiths, reaches the following conclusion: (Surely God is beyond all the expressions in the following summary):
1. When we look at the research carried out in recent years, we see that Prophet Jesus did not teach that he was God, or the Son of God, the second element in the Trinity. In complete contrast to that belief, he always taught that he was the son of Man.2. Christian authorities and theologians are unable to expound the traditional Christian belief that Prophet Jesus is both fully God and also fully human in a comprehensible manner.3. Belief in incarnation does irreparable harm to Christians' relations with other religious traditions and their adherents. That is because this belief implies that Christianity is superior to other religions.47
One matter needs to be clarified here. This book does not seek to judge either those people who first proposed this belief or those sincere Christians who adhere to it, but to reveal the truth about trinitarian belief according to the Qur'an and to explain how it came to be produced and adopted. It must not be forgotten that true Muslims believe in all of the prophets and books sent by God, and respect Christians beliefs and values. Muslims feel great affection for all Christians who sincerely believe in God, fear and respect Him, are sincerely devoted to Him, and who respect His messenger, Prophet Jesus (pbuh), and approach such Christians in a spirit of friendship and tolerance.
There may be people who propagate belief in the trinity with secret designs of their own, who look to only their own interests. In much the same way, others of sincere intent may possibly have moved away from the true path gradually, without being aware of it. The belief in question, originally expressed in a different form, may have become distorted over time. Communities of individuals who supported beliefs similar to the trinity and played a role in its becoming accepted must have held very different ideas from one another. Some may well have supported such claims, with the aim of emphasizing the superior moral values of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), while others may have misinterpreted metaphorical expressions. Still others, influenced by the prevailing political and cultural conditions of the time, may have wanted to ensure a more rapid spread of Christianity. In rejecting the trinity, therefore, we need to bear in mind the possibility that the first Christians may have fallen into error through being influenced by the historical, political, and cultural conditions of their time, or else may have been adversely affected by the persecution and oppression to which they were subjected. The probable reasons for the claim about the trinity being put forward are revealed in this chapter. (Surely God is beyond all the superstitious expressions employed in this chapter to describe Christians' mistaken beliefs. We once again state that Prophet Jesus [pbuh] has nothing to do with such ascriptions.)
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)