Below is Chapter 5 of my book about religion, “Disbelief”.
THE 300-YEAR WAR OF WORDS
The “canon” is the set of books Christian’s regard as divinely-inspired and constituting the Christian Bible. The Hebrew priesthood completed the Old Testament portion by 400 B.C. Christian biblical scholars say that the additional books of the New Testament were originally written as early as 60-120 A.D., although skeptics believe that they may have been written a century or more later.
The content of the Old and New Testaments in bibles today represents the surviving, officially-approved literature of a very nasty philosophical and theological war that raged in the emergent Christian church community for three centuries.
Spiritual Foundations
Many religious historians use the term “The Axial Age” to describe the period from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D., when the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently in China, India, Persia, Judea and Greece. These foundations were laid by individual thinkers within a framework of a changing social environment.
No one knows exactly why many of the world’s major religions sprung up seemingly all at once and independently. A common denominator could be the empire-building of the Greeks and Romans during that time. Both the Greeks and Romans expanded the reach of their military might during that period, and simultaneously exported their culture and philosophy to new lands and peoples. The reach of Greco-Roman influence during this time extended from Britain and Spain on the west, to North Africa and Egypt on the south, from Germany to the Black Sea on the north, to India on the east. This was pretty much the “known world” at the time. Into these culturally diverse areas, each with their own ancient beliefs, poured new philosophical concepts from the likes of Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Marcus Aurelius, among others. Their ideas: the unity of opposites; logos, a master design; platonic realism, beyond senses to higher insights about reality; knowledge, justified true belief; morality, a return to the simplicity of nature; stoicism, a relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom; the superiority of reason; etc.
At this time in world history, paganism was extant throughout the Greco-Roman empires. In each culture, there was a family of gods that were revered, and that family and each of its members had its own mythology. Generally speaking, there was a great degree of religious tolerance at the time. The Greeks and Romans both had their pantheon of gods that they favored, yet they allowed the peoples of the countries that they conquered to keep and venerate their own. It was truly a time of “different strokes for different folks”.
Into this mix were tossed the Hebrews, a monotheistic (belief in one god) people. From 587 to 538 B.C., in three waves, many prominent officials, priests, and other Judeans were exiled by King Nebuchadnezzar from Palestine in what has come to be known by Jews as the “Babylonian Captivity”. These people subsequently settled in many areas in Europe and Asia Minor. And, when they arrived in foreign lands, their unique and ancient religion set them apart, and provoked interest among pagans and philosophers alike. Jewish synagogues sprung up and, apparently, thrived in many cities.
Jews were invited back to Jerusalem by Persian King Cyrus the Great in 538 B.C., and their holy Temple was rebuilt within about twenty years. After the Persians came the Macedonians, then the Seleucids, then the Hasmonean dynasty (Jews actually governed themselves for about 100 years!). In 63 B.C. the Romans came to town, and for the next one hundred years kept the locals at bay.
In 70 A.D. the Romans ended an uprising by Jews in Palestine (the First Jewish-Roman War) by crushing their opponents, sacking Jerusalem, and destroying the Second Temple. Again in 135 A.D., in what is known as the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the latest “Messiah”, whose efforts were blessed by the Jewish High Priest, led an insurrection against the Romans. Emperor Hadrian was not amused by this latest civil war, and he directed his Imperial legions to savage the impertinent rebels. Over 580,000 Jews were killed and 985 Palestinian villages were razed by the Romans. Members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin were tortured and executed. The High Priest who had supported the rebel leader had the skin of his head pulled off slowly. Jews who were lucky not to be slaughtered or sold into slavery by their Roman conquerors fled to other countries (now known as “Diaspora Jews”, as in dispersed), where they again mixed with pagans, philosophers, and members of metaphysical sects.
One important result of the Bar Kokhba Revolt was that it occasioned major changes in Jewish religious thought. Messianism, the idea that an anointed one would deliver the Jews from their oppressors, was abstracted and spiritualized; by necessity, the thought began to gain traction that the Old Testament promise related more to spiritual deliverance than to rescue from worldly tyrants.
To put it in another way, the Jewish Ford dealerships in the late-1st and early-2nd century found themselves trying to sell Edsels to weary and wary consumers.
This was the state of the Jewish “world” when the Jesus Christ cult began to emerge from the physical and emotional rubble.
Customized Christianity
Emerging local churches espousing the “Jewish-Christian” theology of the 1st and 2nd centuries were somewhat unique, determined by the local head cleric. There was no common “orthodoxy” at the time, no official dogma, doctrine, canon, or rites practiced by Jesus Christ cultists. And, that’s what they were at that time…an unorthodox, unauthorized branch of Judaism. The theology of a particular parish (most likely a synagogue) depended upon the information that had been collected and digested by the head priest, along with his particular “spin”. In some cases, that priest published his own religious material. Jewish-Christian theology was being developed on-the-fly.
As the Jesus Christ movement blossomed, a spate of Gospels (“good news”) began to be spread about the Christian world, each generating its own mythology about supposed Christian beginnings. Archaelogists have uncovered evidence of at least fifty-five Gospels, some of which vary considerably in story and message from the familiar Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Among the other fifty-one are:
Gospel of Thomas fails to mention crucifixion, resurrection, final judgment, or messianic understanding of Jesus
Gospel of Nicodemus written in the 4th century, contains testimony supposedly obtained by Pontius Pilate
Gospel of Barnabas written in 17th century, conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins
Gospel of Gamaliel supposedly attests to the conversion of the great rabbi (teacher of Paul?) and president of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to Christianity, which Jews deny
Infancy Gospel of
Matthew recollections of the Virgin Mary’s birth and Jesus’ childhood, written approximately 600 years after the fact
Gospel of James written in the 2nd century, it expands on the virginity legend of Jesus’ mother Mary
Gospel of Judas conversations between Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ, written 100 years after the fact; suggests Judas was acting in accordance with Jesus’ instructions, and was the only disciple to be taught the True Gospel
Gospel of Philip suggests a close, loving relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene
What the other fifty-one Gospels have in common with the canonical Gospels is that they were: (a) focused on an alleged “Jesus Christ” ministry; (b) all written long after the supposed events they portrayed; and, (c) were not written by the purported authors. In other words, no one knows who wrote them and, more importantly, why.
In today’s world, a story that cannot be backed by evidence, is presented in a “hearsay” manner, and is produced by an anonymous source is quickly dismissed as balderdash. Back in the 1st and 2nd century, though, people were so anxious to hear something fantastic and wonderful that they didn’t do much fact-checking. And, that is what the early Jewish-Christian priests-Gospel writers were counting on.
As noted in Acts and the Pauline Epistles, a lot of early discussion and debate ensued between the parish priests regarding Mosaic Law (including circumcision and dietary rules), the Jesus Christ story, and the nature of God. The most likely scenario with the numerous Gospels is that each was written to strengthen some particular doctrine of the sect that the author belonged. That’s because, in addition to the many Gospels, there were many off-shoots of the breakaway Jewish “Jesus Christ” movement in Christianity’s first 300 years.
Notable divisions among the Jewish/Christian sects included:
Ebionites – 1st century – believed that Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah; insisted on following Jewish law; considered St. Paul an apostate from the Law
Nazarenes – 1st century – early sect, considered themselves Jews; adhered to the Law of Moses; rejected the canonical Gospels, and accepted the Virgin Birth
Adoptionists – 1st century – believed that Jesus was adopted by God following his baptism; Jesus was chosen because of his sinless devotion to God; did not believe that Jesus was God’s son, any of the Virgin Mary story, etc.
Gnostics – 1st century – believed in a knowledge superior to and unknown by faith; God is within each of us, knowledge is supreme; anti-clerical…i.e. the individual is his/her own priest
Ophites – 1st century – a Christian sect that preferred to venerate the serpent (from the Garden of Eden story) instead of Christ; thought Jesus might have been a wise and virtuous man
Cerinthians – 1st century – early Christian Gnostic sect, followed Jewish law; used the Gospel According to the Hebrews; denied the divinity of Jesus
Encratites – 1st century – ascetic Gnostic sect; abstained from worldly pleasures, instead pursued religious and spiritual goals; rejected the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles; sometimes called the Severians
Borborites – 2nd century – a libertine Gnostic sect; denied that Christ had a real body or was the child of Mary; used both the Old and New Testaments, but did not acknowledge the God of the Old Testament as the supreme deity
Docetists – 2nd century – denied Jesus’ humanity…He only seemed human
Montanists – 2nd century – believers in prophecy, reliance on spontaneity of the Holy Spirit, and conservative personal ethics; believed in power of apostles, prophets, martyrs, and confessors to forgive sins (later extended to bishops and presbyters); believed preachers should be paid
Basilidians -2nd century – claimed that Jesus had not been crucified, but had swapped places with a mysterious bystander named Simon of Cyrene; Christ was the latest of a whole series of spiritual agents from the higher god; did not believe in the Resurrection; believed that “we are also from God and are also divine”
Marcionites – 2nd century – believed that Jesus was a savior sent by God and that Paul was his apostle; did not believe in the holy family, the nativity, or Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist; Christ descended fully grown from heaven, to bring the “Grace” of a loving god to replace “The Law” of the harsh Jewish god Yahweh; as a divine, Jesus’ only appeared to suffer on the cross
Carpocrations – 2nd century – a libertine, Gnostic sect; Jesus was not divine, but a good man
Arianites -3rd century – believed that God the Father and Jesus the Son are two separate entities (i.e. did not buy into idea of the Trinity)
Manichaeans – 3rd century – believed in elaborate cosmology, struggle between a good, spiritual world of light and an evil, material world of darkness; theology is mix of Gnostic Christianity, Zooastrianism, and Buddhism
Sabellianism – 3rd century – denied the Trinity; Jesus Christ was not human at any time, therefore He could not have suffered
Preterists/Pantelists – 3rd century – believed that events of Daniel and Revelation happened in the 1st century (i.e. that “second coming” predictions were fulfilled)
Pelagianists – 4th century – disputed idea of Original Sin; mortal will is capable of choosing between good and evil without divine guidance
What is clear from a review of early church beliefs is that “the Jesus story” and “the Christian message” had not yet been worked out by the 4th century, almost three hundred years after Jesus Christ’s supposed life. Christianity at that time was a germinating seed, consisting of DNA from Judaism, Platonism, Paganism, Zooastrianism, and Gnostic mysticism, with some old-fashioned hucksterism thrown in.
What was needed, in the opinion of a few ambitious and fanatical clerics, was a coherent code of monotheistic belief…a “new and improved” Judaism, if you will…with an approved orthodoxy (i.e. a uniform, accepted creed). And, so, in the second, third, and fourth centuries, a number of forceful men stepped forward, determined to commandeer the new religion and produce an irresistible theological product.
The Church Fathers
Catholic Church tradition would have the faithful believe that the Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Christian church in Rome. The Bible says nothing of the sort. In fact, according to the New Testament, St. Peter never visited the place, and St. Paul’s stay there was as a prisoner of the Roman government, where he briefly chatted with some Jewish leaders while he was in a rented house. As a matter of fact, other than “tradition”, there is no reliable information indicating who founded the church in Rome or when it happened.
One (dubious) report from antiquity gives some indication that there were Jewish Christians in Rome by 64 A.D. Roman historian and senator Tacitus is alleged to have written about the Jesus Christ cult in his passage about the Great Fire of Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero. Tacitus refers to Christ, his earlier execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence and persecution of Christians in Rome at the time, in his book, Annals.
However, Tacitus was supposedly writing in 116 A.D., fifty years after the Great Fire, and was born 25 years after the life of Jesus Christ. He was not a witness to the Holy pageant in Palestine, and his comments many decades after the Great Fire benefit from later knowledge about the Christians, their beliefs, and their influence on Roman culture in the early 2nd century. Also adding to the skepticism about Tacitus’ Annals is the fact that the earliest known example of the document was written in Latin at the Benedictine Abbey at Monte Cassino, Italy, in the 11th century. It is at least possible that Tacitus’ original passage regarding the early Christians in Rome was re-worked by the Benedictine clergy during the 1,000 year lapse between the purported events and the publication of the Tacitus’ so-called Annals. It is also possible that the “Christian” passage in Annals is a complete forgery, added by the Benedictine brothers to provide provenance to Christianity’s murky early Roman beginnings.
The Catholic Church recognizes three men as “apostolic” Fathers of the Church. Supposedly these bishops (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna) learned their craft at the feet of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Not much is known about any of them; that which survives is Church “tradition”, including the fact that these three were active in the new church movement in the first century. As usual, the three allegedly suffered martyrdoms at the hands of the Romans. Supposedly, Clement was tied to an anchor and tossed into the Black Sea, while Ignatius was fed to the lions in the Colosseum. Polycarp, on the other hand, proved a difficult man to kill. The Romans tried burning him at the stake, but the flames did not hurt him. So, he was stabbed to death, and there was so much blood from the wound that it quenched the fires surrounding his body. That’s pretty hard to believe, but it does beat the tale of Paul’s bouncing decapitated head creating natural water springs.
What these three Apostolic Fathers left behind was minimal, in terms of written material, but they shared a common message: the imperative that the bishops run the parishes with an iron hand. They believed that the authority had been passed down to them directly from the twelve disciples, hence from Jesus Christ himself. Ignatius, in particular, asserted the supremacy of the bishop as a divine institution. He went so far as to affirm that the bishop stands in the place of Christ himself: “When ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ…Be ye obedient also to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ.” (ad Trallians, 2). This was the beginning of the idea of “apostolic succession” which eventually justified the elevation of a high-ranked Christian cleric to the all-powerful position of Pope (from the Greek papa, meaning “father”).
It is not clear how true believers in the new creed were ordained as church deacons, presbyters, or bishops. There was no central church in the first three centuries A.D. to sanction ordinations of priests and creation of bishropics. Undoubtedly, some of them were self-appointed, similar to Paul of Tarsus, who appointed himself an Apostle after claiming to experience a vision of the Holy Spirit. Others, it seems, were appointed by their buddy clerics.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, other Church Fathers (of the non-Apostolic breed) emerged to assert their thoughts on orthodoxy and the leadership of the young Christian church. Irenaeus of Gaul was a lead-prosecutor, commonly called apologist, for Church orthodoxy in the late 2nd century. His mission was to root-out Gnostic heretics (like the Marcionites) and reinforce the idea that the bishops provide the only safe guide to interpreting Scripture. Irenaeus was one of the first to suggest the canonization of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and was the main promulgator of the cult of the “Virgin Mary”. Tertullian was an early Christian theologian from Carthage (in North Africa) who was the first to express the idea of the Trinity in Latin. He likewise spent a lot of effort identifying and debunking heretics. Origen of Alexandria, a respected early theologian, is now considered a Church Father, although his followers were denounced as anathema and he was considered a heretic by some of his peers during his life. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was adamant that everyone seeking enlightenment must do it through his church. He is famous for saying, “He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother”, and rejecting all religious ideas other than his own by adding, “…nor is there any other home for believers but the one Church.” Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria was an ultra orthodox cleric who led the fight against Arian Christians (who held the position that Jesus was distinctly different than God the Father). And, there were many others whose divergent views on the Jesus Christ idea caused constant skirmishing within the nascent religion.
The fight for position by Christian cleric against Christian cleric did not go unnoticed among the pagan bystanders. Ammianus Marcellinus, a 4th century Roman historian, commented that, “The enmity of the Christians towards each other surpassed the fury of savage beasts against man.”
Other citizens of the Empire were amused by the new religion and the credulity of its converts. Take for example a sanctimonious quote from 2nd century Bishop Melito of Sardis: “For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to his baptism, that his soul and his body, his human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in his flesh.” Of course, Bishop Melito had only read about those deeds and miracles in books written by unknown clerics who, admittedly, didn’t witness any of the purported acts. And, of course, converts to the new religion were to follow whatever Bishop Melito told them.
Lucian of Samosata, a famous 2nd century Greek rhetorician, didn’t think too much of Christians’ common sense: “They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So, if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time.” Yes, like a power-hungry, egomaniacal Bishop!
Improved Marketing through Orthodoxy
It is highly likely that the initial generations of “Christian” bishops had earlier in their lives been Jewish priests, like Paul of Tarsus. Being “holy men” was the only job they’d ever had, and the rewards had been immense: power, prestige, and good living. The Judaean state was the quintessential theocracy. The priesthood controlled all aspects of Jewish life and the humble Jew was totally at the mercy of the priest. Even under Roman rule, the priesthood fused with, and became part of, the ruling elite. This is why, if the story of Jesus of Nazareth is to be believed, the Romans crucified Christ, the agitator against the Pharisees (the guys who ran the Jewish Temple).
Judaism succeeded over the many generations because it had a set of beliefs “set in stone” and a long-established mythology. There were no orthodox and non-orthodox Jews in antiquity…they all believed in the same thing, and practiced their religion the same way…lest they invoke the ire of the High Priest and his enforcer thugs (like Paul of Tarsus).
The success of this religious model was not lost on the new “Christian” (i.e. ex-Jewish) clerics. As the 3rd century of Christian thought came to a close, they realized that they needed to quickly settle amongst themselves on exactly what story they were peddling. Orthodoxy favored a set of simplistic tales, little more than “comings and goings” of the godman, comprehensible to the uneducated, and readily re-enacted in pageant and ceremonial. These fables would then be presented as “true accounts from recent history”.
Constantine’s “Fifth Column”
At the beginning of the 4th century, Constantine was an aspiring Roman Caesar. He was the son of a Caesar, and a military man, doing his job in the remote province of Britain. Constantine was ambitious, but needed to expand his political base, particularly eastward, because the eastern provinces of the Empire were the wealthiest and most populous. Constantine was aware that Emperor Diocletian had recently purged Christians in Nicodemia (now Turkey), and his most fierce rival, Galerius, was known to despise the Christian cult. Needing more support for his ambitions, in a political move, Constantine announced from the western provinces that he was now the “protector of Christians”. This stratagem didn’t benefit him immediately because Christians only comprised two percent of the eastern provinces. But, it did put him in nominal charge of a “fifth column” of Christian fanatics in the east, a state within a state.
Christian agitators within the Empire turned the misfortunes of the Roman world to their advantage. They directed their energies towards frightened widows and abandoned children, towards the slave and criminal classes. Every defeat in battle, every pestilence and natural calamity, was seized upon as evidence of divine censure and retribution. With zeal and anticipation, the Christians predicted further ruin and desolation. Among the peoples of the great cities, the fear of imminent judgment and the threat of eternal torment were spread like a contagion. Only by submission to Christ could the individual hope for salvation.
This was the “burr” that Constantine put under his opponent’s saddle, throwing in his lot with the Christian underground.
When Galerius died in 311, Constantine went on the offensive, decisively seizing control of Africa and Italy. One of his key victories took place at the Milvian Bridge, where later Catholic historians would claim that Constantine’s troops rode to victory with Christian crosses on their battle flags, thus insuring victory. This is an incredible story, but not true: the cross was not to become a Christian symbol for another two hundred years.
In 314, Constantine plunged the Empire into another civil war against his last rival, Licinius. After some brutal battles, Licinius sued for peace, and Constantine had achieved his goal of becoming Augustus…Emperor of the Roman Empire. Almost immediately, he began drawing up plans to move the capitol from Rome eight hundred miles to the east, to a new grand city on the Bosphorus which would be called Constantinople. After 326, Constantine never again set foot in Rome. He is quoted as saying that “he never liked the city”. With the power and wealth of the Empire shifting to the east, Rome became a city in decline, easy prey for barbarians and emboldened Christian clergy.
The egotistical Constantine set a model for all future monarchs: he surrounded the imperial dignity with a halo of sacredness and ceremonial pomposity. He was now, in his own mind (and, bolstered by his cheering section of Christian clerics), God’s Agent on Earth. Politician that he was, Constantine realized that he could use the unifying force of religion to strengthen his control of the Empire. As one historian observed, “Nothing is more welcome to a military empire than a religious doctrine that counsels obedience and acquiescence.”
The “Christianization” of Constantine is somewhat confusing. Probably as payback for support in his military campaign to become Augustus Caesar, Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313, officially proclaiming freedom of religion within the Empire and putting to an end the persecution of Christians begun under Emperor Diocletian. Later in his reign Constantine made the Christian church the most favored recipient of the near-limitless resources of imperial favor. However, he was not a Christian himself at this time. Prominent on the Arch of Constantine, finished in 315, was a depiction of the pagan god Apollo. And, on Imperial coinage minted at least as late as 317, Constantine stood shoulder to shoulder with the Sun God – Sol Invictus.
The developing partnership between Christian clergy and the Emperor brought about a high level of pandering to his massive ego. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent Christian propagandist of the time and enthusiastic bootlicker of the Emperor, likened him to a “new Moses, a new Abraham”. Constantine more modestly saw himself as a Thirteenth Apostle, a saint-in-waiting. The church and the as yet un-converted Emperor were now linked arm-in-arm, with the common goal of amassing power and crushing opposition. Constantine’s focus was on his new capitol city, while Christian leadership set its target on Rome, where there was now a power vacuum.
The Arian-Trinitarian Dogfight
Bishop Eusebius was a Christian in the Arian camp of belief. Arians (followers of Arius, a 4th century Alexandrian presbyter) believed that “A creation is less than its creator. The Son is less than the Father that ‘begot’ him. In the beginning was the Creator God and the Son did not exist.” It was a simple theology, one that had a certain rationality and also the merit that it could be easily understood.
However, in the early 4th century, the popular concept among many Christian bishops (and, interestingly, not one found in the Bible) was that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same – called the Trinity. It was, and is, a difficult concept to get one’s arms around. How could a “redeeming sacrifice” – if less than a god – “atone for all of humanity’s sins?” But, on the other hand, if the sacrificial lamb was really a god, could he then really have suffered and died on the cross?
Arian Christians felt strongly that the Trinity concept was anti-rational and anti-Scriptural. In Mark 6:46, Jesus “…departed into a mountain to pray”. If Christ were truly part of the Trinity, then he would be praying to himself, which doesn’t make sense whatsoever. In John 14:28, Jesus says, “…the Father is greater than I”. So, the Arians thought, if Christ and his father are one in the same, why would he say such a thing? The problem was that they were being rational and not looking far enough toward the end goal, as were their opponents.
The great Arian versus Trinitarian slugfest of the early 4th century threatened to destroy Constantine’s hope that the Christian religion could be a unifying force in his Empire. In an attempt to reconcile the many divergent beliefs of the Empire’s Christian clergy, Constantine convened a large meeting of the combatants in 325 in Nicaea (what is now northern Turkey). Because Bishop Eusebius was a learned man and famous author, he was favored by Emperor Constantine and called upon to present the creed of his own (Arian) church to kick-off the debate amongst the three hundred attendees. However, the predominant preference of the assembly was anti-Arian. Constantine, vexed by the discord among the bishops, and not too concerned with the fine points of Christian theology, wanted more than anything a catholic or universal orthodox faith to get everyone on the same page.
This is precisely what he created off the assembly line that was the Council of Nicaea. Supposedly, Constantine, the political pragmatist, himself broke the deadlock by proposing the compromise formula which expressed his idea of the precise relationship of Christ to God: he opted for “of one substance” (in Greek homoousian). Thus it was determined that Jesus of Nazareth had, in fact, been God incarnate, the infinite Creator of the universe. Once the dogmatic logjam was forcibly broken, the bishops got down to business and agreed (most of them) to a common creed that they would propound in their Catholic Christian churches.
The Nicene Creed, or profession of faith, basically endorsed the mythology of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as laid out in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was supposed to end all debate over who Jesus was and the message that he delivered. As is the case with much of Church history, conveniently no copies of the Nicene Council’s proceedings survived. Eyewitnesses at the conclave stated that once the Creed was finished, eighteen bishops continued to oppose it. Constantine at this point threatened to exile anyone who didn’t sign it. In the end, two Libyan bishops and Arius, the father of Arianism, refused to sign and were officially exiled, although Constantine later allowed them to return to their homes.
Despite the Nicene concord, the Arian-Trinitarian debate continued on for another fifty years. And, even though he had been exiled, Arius eventually prevailed with Constantine. He submitted a creed to Constantine which the Emperor judged to be orthodox, and a contrite emperor ordered that Arius should receive holy communion in the cathedral at Constantinople. Bishop Arius died (rumor has it he was poisoned by opponents) on the way to the church to receive that communion.
Interestingly, although Constantine the Great ended persecution of Christians, made them a favored religion within the Empire, and helped Christianity adopt a universal creed, he was not a practicing Christian during his lifetime. Allegedly, in 337, on his deathbed, Constantine was baptized by Bishop Eusebius… one of the most prominent Arian Christians of the day.
Arian theology was favored during the reign of Constantine’s son, Constantius II. Chief Trinitarian proponent, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, fought a losing battle for a generation against Bishop Arius and the Empire. Athanasius was exiled at least four times by Imperial order. He even recruited Pope Julius I to his side. The Pope called a council favorable to Athanasius at Sardica in 343, but the council was avoided by Eastern bishops and ignored by Emperor Constantius. By 350, Arian bishops commanded important sees throughout the Empire, most importantly at the imperial cities of Milan and Constantinople. Ten years later, the Arian homoean (“of like substance”) view became the official Catholic church position via the Council of Constantinople.
Yet, the war of words was not ended. Trinitarian bishops were now heretics, and many were exiled. Theologically opposed bishops literally fought each other in the streets. While all of this mayhem was going on, Julian replaced Constantius as Emperor. Although raised as a Christian, Julian was in fact a pagan, and he did everything he could to irritate the festering Arian-Trinitarian boil. He even encouraged exiled Trinitarian fanatics to return home in the hope that they might destroy each other (and their common religion). Some of this occurred. When head Trinitarian Bishop Athanasius was briefly exiled from his Alexandria see, his replacement, Arian Bishop George of Cappadocia, was seized by enraged inhabitants and thrown into the sea.
Eventually the Trinitarians won out. Between 364 and 381, a succession of Catholic-friendly Emperors were persuaded by Bishop Ambrose of Milan to cut the legs off of the Arian movement. Between 379 and 380, a series of laws was enacted to prohibit Arianism in the West (i.e. west of the eastern provinces). Ultimately, Theodosius I, the last Emperor to rule over both the western and eastern halves of the Roman Emperor, gave Arianism the coup d’grace. In 381, Theodosius reconvened the Council of Constantinople, where Catholic orthodoxy was redefined to include the mysterious Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, who, though equal to the Father, ‘proceeded’ from Him, whereas the Son was ‘begotten’ of Him.” Following up on that decision, the new Emperor later outlawed Arianism entirely, dismissed many Arian Christian bishops from their posts, made Christianity the state religion of the Empire, and set Christian fanatics loose to loot and destroy pagan temples.
The Last Piece of the Puzzle
The obstinate princes of the church had finally achieved their objective: the Catholic Church had become the state religion of the greatest Empire the world had ever known. And, in the process, they had instituted the confusing idea of the three-headed God. But, why had this principle of the Trinity been so important that Christian bishops fought over it for a good part of century?
At the time that Christianity became the favored religion of the Roman Empire, more than 90 percent of its citizenry were non-Christians. In fact, they were mostly pagan worshippers. There was no official pagan church or dogma for the Christians to target. Pagans paid tribute to, and sought blessings from, a variety of favorite “gods” who supposedly controlled things like harvests, fertility, success, and such. When something good happened to a pagan, he might attribute the “miracle” to his pandering to the appropriate god whose effort, behind the scenes, had made it possible. That was (and, continues to be) the primary reason “believers” pray to, make sacrifices to, and venerate mysterious spirits that no one can see.
The emerging Christian theologians were quite blatant about commandeering aspects of other religions that could be worked into the Christian product to improve marketability. Talking about miracles Jesus performed back in the day was interesting, but people in the 4th century wanted to know “what can He do for me now?” The”Holy Spirit” that the Trinitarians had insisted on including in the Christian creed was meant to represent the mysterious essence of God that works his divine magic on earth, just like pagan gods helped those who venerated them. Everyone knows who God is, and Christians believed they knew who Jesus was and what he stood for, but there needed to be some Christian agent here on earth, always at the ready, with the ability to affect miracles for good Christians.
The new Christian “Trinity” (sounds like the latest Ford Hybrid) had three outstanding features to attract tire-kickers: A God to be feared, everlasting life in Heaven to those who believed, and an army of Angels to perform miracles on the customer’s behalf. It was just about everything that a person would want in terms of divinity, so it is no wonder that many pagans throughout the Empire flocked to the dealership for a test drive.