Coming from a background where my grandma passed away as a Christian, all six of my uncles died as Christians or Atheists, my mom died very young but converted to Islam before, I have a deeply personal connection to these issues. I remember once asking my grandma about the cross with Jesus on it that hung in her bedroom. “Why do you worship Jesus?” I asked. She replied that she had asked the same question when she was younger, and the priest told her, “Jesus is God. That’s all you need to know.” He added, “You cannot ask questions like that again.” And she never did.
Yet, throughout my life, I never saw her pray or attend church. Still, if asked about her religion, she would have said Catholic. At the time, the internet didn’t exist, and there were very few books on Islam, especially in small towns in France. They didn’t have the resources to explore questions like “Why is Jesus worshipped?” or “Is it true that Jesus is God?” And, at that time, I didn’t have the knowledge to explain it either.
So, when did Jesus become regarded as God? Jesus never claimed once he was God, so how did this belief came about? Was this always the view, or did the early Christian Church understood it differently?
We are now in the 4th century:
After Jesus (pbuh) was no longer on this earth, the early Christian church saw rapid growth but also faced significant internal divisions over theological matters. By the 4th century AD, debates became more intense, particularly regarding the nature of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and the role each person had was not clearly defined, leading to theological disputes, particularly regarding the nature of the Son, which caused divisions and began to seriously threaten the stability of the Roman Empire. The central question that divided the believers was the following: Is Jesus God or not? Consequently, is He divine or simply human, like the other prophets who came before Him?
The two main theological theories that persisted during this troubled time were the Arianism and the Athanasius theories:
- The Arius Theory:
Arius was a priest who developed the Arianism doctrine stated that there was a time when Jesus did not exist, and only God the Father existed, therefore Jesus the Son was not co-eternal with the Father because he was a created being, distinct from God the Father. And he believed that if Jesus were elevated to divinity in the same way God is, it would undermine the absolute monotheism at the core of the Christian faith (a view that closely aligns with the Islamic perspective: God is one, has no equals, and this absolute monotheism is exactly what all the prophets listed on page 2 of this website preached).
His theory was supported by prominent figures of the church who agreed with him that Jesus was not God, figures such as Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop Theognis, Bishop Ursacius of Singidunum, Bishop Valens of Mursa, Bishop Macedonius of Constantinople and that just to name a few, they all believed that Jesus could not be divine the same way God is, as he was a created being.
- The Athanasius theory:
Athanasius’ theory although very confusing to understand to this day, insisted that Jesus had always existed with God from the beginning of time, that Jesus was not “born” in the way humans are born, as He is eternal and uncreated being of the same essence as the Father. In his work On the Incarnation, Athanasius argues that Jesus, the Son of God, existed before time and was the eternal Word. While Jesus’ human birth in Bethlehem was a real event, it was the moment the eternal Word assumed a human body, not a beginning of His existence. Thus, Jesus’ divinity is eternal, and His incarnation was a unique act of God entering into a human body to be sacrificed later on the cross in order to allow the forgiveness of our sins.
At the council of Nicaea 325AD: Jesus became God
By the order of Constantine, Emperor of Rome, the Council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD in the city of Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey). The Council of Nicaea would have been very similar to what a modern papal conclave is today, while both involve decision-making within the church, the Council of Nicaea was more about voting on a doctrine, while a modern conclave is focused on electing a new Pope.
It’s important to mention that Constantine himself was not particularly religious, having been baptized only shortly before his death in 337 AD, twelve years after the Council of Nicaea and that although Rome is far from Turkey, Constantine made sure to be present at the Council of Nicaea to influence the outcome.
Constantine the Great, who reigned from 306 to 337 AD, was widely regarded as a great strategist, both in terms of his military expertise and his political manoeuvring. He recognized that the growing divisions among Christian factions were beginning to threaten the stability of the Roman Empire. It is written that he invited all of the 1,800 bishops from across the Christian world (roughly 1,000 from the East and 800 from the West) to join him at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The purpose was to take a vote to resolve the theological dispute between the two main theories: Arius and Athanasius.
Knowing that Constantine was openly in favor of the Athanasian theory, it is recorded that only a small number of bishops attended. Bishop and Roman historian Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270 bishops present at the council of Nicaea.