Jesus Christ!

Phew.  Now that the intro is out of the way, here’s my first ‘thought’ I’d like to share with the world.   Steady yourselves.

About two days ago, I finished reading ‘The Da Vinci Code’ by Dan Brown.  You’ve almost certainly heard of it in some way, shape, or form.  I do not want to go into book-review mode tonight, but needless to say, I enjoyed it, even if it is a tad overhyped.  If you want a full low-down on the plot: you obviously made it this far, I’m sure you know how to use Google as well.  Alternatively, if you’re lazy, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code .  C’est magnifique, non?

It’s the whole Jesus-thing which I found incredibly interesting.  In Islamic thought (I am a Muslim, yes?), Jesus has always been viewed as a Prophet and the Messiah.  Muslims recognise that Jesus’ birth was miraculous and that he performed miracles throughout his administration as Prophet.  The Christians, on the other hand, view Jesus as the only begotten son of God, which I do find insane on so many levels.  It seems Brown and the numerous works he pilfers from agrees with me to some extent.

Brown suggests, referring to what is definitely historical fact, that when the Romans adopted Christianity as their official religion, they imported a ton of their pagan ideas into the mix.  Christians acknowledge this to this day.  Yet here’s the thing: why did Emperor Constantine allow this in the first place?

According to Brown (and I am inclined to agree), Constantine saw that as more and more of his citizens adopted Christian belief, his power and influence as a pagan ruler was on the decline.  He did what any prudent Roman would do: he decided he had to back the winner as well.  Does this sound cynical? Maybe, but having a vague idea of Roman history and their psychology as pragmatists (I read ‘Rubicon’ by Tom Holland quite recently, aren’t I special?), it seems an apt reason for Constantine to switch sides.

However, Constantine faced a problem.  Of course he could change his religion, but how would he convince the rest of the Roman Empire to follow suit?  There were still a lot of people immersed in their pagan rituals and beliefs, and if it worked for them, why change it?  This is where the genius of Constantine shined through.  Why not give a little leeway in the matter, meet the pagans in the middle, and incorporate their rituals into Christianity?  Hence, looking at Catholicism as an example, we have the rites of Communion, the birthday of the sun-god Mithra on the same day as Christmas and so on.  Perhaps the biggest compromise, however, was the idea that Christ was Divine.

This was another Roman belief.  There existed in Roman mythology sons of gods who walked the earth and who were able to perform miraculous deeds.  I am not disputing that Jesus performed miracles – I’d rather be skinned alive than deny his importance as a Prophet and healer.  However, when the New Testament was finalised at the Council of Nicea in the year 325, it was the result of a conflict between those who didn’t want this compromise versus those who did.  It was a conflict between the Trinitarians and Unitarians, those who believed in Christ’s divinity versus those who believed he was simply a man.

Of course, Constantine supported the Trinitarians.  It was politically expedient for him to do so.  To further cement this support, the four Canonical Gospels were selected as the final say in the matter.  A result of this was that that he established a power-base for himself and he created the institutionalised power of the Church at the same time.  Anyone who disagreed with this way of life was a heretic and since there were well over three hundred accounts of Jesus’ life, there was a lot of book burning to do.

I’m sure plenty of people already know this stuff already.  I’ve known it for years, but that’s not the point.  The point is, this idea is now creeping into the mainstream and that’s what matters.  Brown has helped undermine the Trinitarian message, even if he has offered in its place a message about the sacred feminine (which is another topic entirely).

Following on from this, I think that Allah Himself was severely displeased with how Jesus’ message had been so carelessly cast aside.  I don’t want to bother anyone with quotes from the Bible which emphasised Jesus’ strict monotheistic teachings, but Muslims reassert the view that Jesus was simply a man and not literally divine.  I think that the Qur’an aptly demonstrates this displeasure (again, use Google for examples).

Christians tend to react negatively, however.  They claim that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was borrowing teachings from his Jewish and Christian neighbours; when in fact he was reasserting the Unitarian creed and I seriously doubt he knew the implications of what he was claiming.  He was not in Nicea when Constantine made his decision, nor was he aware of the power of the Church in the Western world.  He was a simple Arab and his Christian neighbours were just as simple.  What I am trying to say is, the Qur’an was revolutionary in what it was claiming against the Christians in a manner no one at the time could calculate.  It sought to undo the power of the lie purported by the Constantine regime in the first place.

Brown obviously didn’t refer to this ;) but it seems to validate Islamic thought concerning Jesus further than before, even if that was never the intention.  Maybe one day, I’ll write a (more coherent) book about it.