Rating: 
Summary: The dramatic story of a struggle that defined Christianity
Review: Not long ago, I gave a talk to a church congregation about the subject of WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD: the great struggle over the divinity of Jesus Christ that ripped the Christian community apart in the fourth century. Today it's known as the Arian controversy, after an Alexandrian priest named Arius, who insisted that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, but not God Himself. At least half the Christian world at that time agreed with him. People in the street took sides along with emperors, bishops, and theologians. It took almost a century of fierce debate, political intrigue, and mass violence before the opposing view - that Jesus was God in the flesh - was accepted as Christian orthodoxy. In the discussion period, members of the congregation peppered me with questions. Why hadn't Christians made up their minds about Jesus' true nature three centuries after his crucifixion? Why couldn't the Roman emperor and more than thirty church councils settle the matter? Why was the conflict so intense and violent? And what can we learn from it that might help us deal with religious conflicts in our own time? The questions were sharp, but I was ready to try to deal with them. These issues, after all, are what the book is about. What surprised me, though, were the comments that people made privately, when we talked one-on-one. "What a story!," said one woman. "I can't believe that we don't learn about it in Sunday School or discuss it in church." "I've never really thought much about Jesus being God," a man admitted. "Maybe I'm really an Arian!" And, from another congregant: "Now I understand the real differences between our Christian faith and the beliefs of Jews and Muslims." I hadn't realized until then how little was generally known about one of the most important struggles in Christian history. I'm glad that I told the story for this reason and several others. It really is a dramatic tale, combining high-level theological debate with portraits of fascinating characters and unexpected plot twists. It brings to life a great urban civilization, now mostly forgotten, but in many ways like ours. It helps us understand why religious disputes sometimes become lethal and what it takes to resolve them. And it invites us to think again about the most significant figure of the past two millennia: the Palestinian rabbi, executed as a rebel, who inspired hundreds of millions of people to change their lives and their world.
Rating: 
Summary: When Politics and Culture Become Theology
Review: Think that the "orthodox" doctrines of the Trinity and Jesus as Almighty God have their basis in Scripture? This well-written, fascinating book reveals that in fact they are the result of politically motivated manueverings and sociological phenomena spanning several centuries after the time of Christ. Rubenstein takes what would be dry history in the hands of a lesser-skilled writer and breathes life into it with a narrative that reads like a novel. The author reveals the conflict waged between the adherents of Arius and Athanasius, detailing its skullduggery, deception and largely secular essence, skillfully placing it within the context of the Roman Empire of the 2nd through 5th centuries. Perhaps the most striking truth to emerge from the pages of this book is how political in nature the Church had become by the 2nd and 3rd centuries. When Constantine pronounced "Christianity" as the state religion, an intimate (and often fiery) relationship between the Church and the State was established which remains to this day. While Jesus stated unequivocally that "My kingdom is no part of this world", this book shows how within a relatively short time after his death those who claimed to be his followers were not only knee-deep in politics, but that their bishops and popes had actually become quasi-political figures themselves. Ultimately, this led to the acceptance of doctrine which viewed Jesus not as an inferior Son of God who was to be imitated, but rather as Almighty God incarnate to be worshipped as part of the "divine mystery" of the Trinity. As Rubenstien explains, Greek philosophy (in the form of such non-Biblical concepts as homoiousios and homoousios) combined with theology based on politically expedient motives eventually won out. ("The Christ...wanted and needed was a High God who could save them...through the ministrations of his Church. In fact, Arian theology implicitly reduced the role of the institutional Church. If Jesus' life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principal mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire. This was another reason Constantine would probably favor the doctrine of...Athanasius. The Church he needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk..."--pg.64) "When Jesus Became God" is an excellent retelling of how politics and culture displaced Scripture in the formation of the central doctrine of "orthodox Christianity" many centuries ago. Just as significantly, the account contained within its pages establishes the precedent for subsequent, similarly politically-motivated actions of Christendom throughout history, from the Crusades and Inquisition right down to the support of Hitler and the existence of the "Religious Right."
Rating: 
Summary: How sad not every Christian has read this book!
Review: I was prompted to write this review after I noticed that a Trinitarian reviewer had twice tried to tar this book with the brush of theological inaccuracy, hoping thereby to dissuade people from taking When Jesus Became God seriously. Let me tell everybody that Rubenstein's work is simply not a treatise on trinitarian theology. What he tells the reader about the ideas of the main contenders (Arius and Athanasius) is necessarily short and summary. His interest lies elsewhere: he wants you to know what happened behind the scenes at the great oecumenical council of Nicea, the council who formulated the main creeds of mainstream Christianity in the fourth century of the Christian era. This is a history book. And Rubenstein tells history in a masterful way, both informing and entertaining the unprejudiced reader. Did Rubenstein grossly distort Athanasius'doctrine? Although I cannot claim to be an expert on Athanasius, I have read quite a number of books on the Fathers of the Church and I can tell you that what you will find in this book is basically true. Athanasius'views are found in When Jesus Became God in the form in which you would find them in a good encyclopaedia. Lots of details are lost, of course, but the main outlines are there. This book is an eye-opener in that it reveals the political stakes behind the homoousios (=of the same substance as) controversy. No doubt pious Christians will be shocked to discover that their champion was a bully who didn't hesitate to use violence to advance his own agenda. But for people who want to know the naked truth this will be a revelation.And perhaps also an opportunity to think again about such hallowed dogmas as the Incarnation and the Trinity. All in all, an excellent read. Give it a chance.
Rating:
Summary: Tricky title
Review: When I purchased this book I did it because of the title, I was looking for some text regarding the first years of the christianity, and especially, regarding of Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor who accepted and took the Christian as official religion. Nevertheless the book does not treat precisely of this topic. It narrates the history of the heresy known like the the Arianism, a thought based on the humanity of Jesus, in who, God Father is in the first place and next, his Son, Christ. The controversy seems trivial in our days, but in the last years of the Roman Empire it caused a bloody movement between 2 kind of thought in the European continent and a part of Asia, the Eastern one led by orthodox Greek and the western monks. Good book, but a tricky title.
Within the book we can find two fundamental characters, Arius, a priest who promulgated and defendeded the ideals of a division between God father and his son, creating a controversy in those who basically did not question this division. The leader of the anti-arian movement, Athanasius, violently fought during all his life to destroy this philosophy, condemnig it as a heresy. Athanasius was exiled 5 times and the 5 ones he returned to his city of Alexandria. Exiled by emperors and bishops he never surrendered before the heretical ideas of the arians theologians. The outcome of this chapter in the violent and irrational history of the Christianity was the separation of the catholic church in 2 fronts in east and the West and its eventual defeat in east at hands of the Islam.
Rating: 
Summary: A Troubling Work of Fiction
Review: Rubenstein should be commended for addressing an oft-neglected period of history and religio-social development, and he captures elements of vibrancy and motion commonly overlooked in the late antique world. However, the conclusions given with total disregard of the evidence raises disturbing questions about the purpose of the book. If the author intended a scholarly constructive study, then he has failed. Utterly.
Take, for example, his treatement of one of the great early Christian heresies, Arianism, a major focal point. Rubenstein essentially attributes Adoptionism to the Arian movement, which appeared about 200 years after and completely separate from the Arian 'school of thought.' Moreover, Rubenstein somehow fails to grasp the critical point that Arian believed in the divinty of Christ, but as an intemporal aspect of the Trinity somehow created or derived by the Father (10th Arian Confession).
Indeed, Rubenstein fails to contextualize and emphasize properly a fundamental issue of late antique Christianity, the nature the Trinity, and somehow manages to broadly neglect Neoplatonism! Yet while there are myriad points of contention that could be raised throughout the book--as there are with any scholarly work--the fundamental issue here is that Rubenstein has brutalized and often completely ignored the textual evidence.
For a scholar of Rubenstein's pedigree, who sites many of the standard sources, it cannot be a case of the inability to handle textual evidence. This raises disturbing questions of whether the book was written for sensationalism and pure notoreity, the sources sited were not actually read by Rubenstein, or that the work is intended to serve some ulterior agenda. However the case may be, the account found therein is one filled with blatantly falacious statements given in complete contradiction to his sited references and unsupported by any evidence. The novice enthusiast is advised to look elsewhere; the specialist would be well served to view the book as fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: Intellectually Dishonest
Review: Rubenstein certainly vivifies a period of history is far too neglected. His description of Alexandria captures some of the vibrancy that the late antique city undoubtedly possessed. Unfortunately, this is a work of a scholar out of his element: Rubenstein is neither a religious studies scholar, nor a historian of early Christianity, and it shows. His entire premise, founded on the conflict between Christians who believed that Jesus was God, and sought to impose this belief, completely unravels from the start: Arians did not believe the Jesus was a person adopted by God because of his accomplishments. Arians believed that Jesus was divine from the start, a divinity, but not God the Father. Rubenstein is well aware of this important distinction: he notes the Arian belief that Christ was "a perfect creature of God, but not like one of the creatures...". Creature, in this case, does not mean simply "man", but Rubenstein finds it convenient to ignore this, because his preconceptions drive this book from start to finish.
Rating:
Summary: Disturbing History?
Review: This is an excellent abridgment of probably one of the most important times in religious history. Though Rubenstein is Jewish and his motives may be in question, especially from the book's title, you cannot say he gets his history wrong. The fact that man interjects his own philosophy into religious belief, and his sometimes violent tendency to force others to believe likewise, is made painfully clear. Rubenstein skillfully unfolds the Christian struggle to incorporate Greek and Roman thought into their new religion. God's true nature is at question in the few decades of time that are covered. In a nutshell, how does one remain monotheistic and keep Jesus divine? The evolving beliefs, the resulting creeds, and the bloodshed that results are absolutely startling. This may be disturbing history for the vast majority of the Christian world, though it does lend credence to a Restorationist view.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent and unbiased report of an important period
Review: This is book worth reading. Like a thriller it tells you the chaotic situation at the end of the Roman Empire, when Christianity became finally the state religion. Who ever thought that this was a pious and smooth process should think again after reading this book.
The fight between the Arians and the "Orthodox" bishops has a close similarity with Mafia gang fights, were each site had an armed mob handy to club the respective theology into the heads of the respective "heretics".
What is it all about? In simple words, the book describes the process of Jesus Christ, the wise "man", becoming identical and indistinguishable from God. The change from a moral role model to a God savior. But this is probably a much to simplistic description. In fact a strong part of the book describes how it was always much easier to criticize the creed of your opponent, than coming up with a creed of your own, which is "true" and inert to criticism.
The book also clarifies another myth. Was the present day Christian faith always like this, even in the first centuries after the death of Christ? Many present day Christians believe this, and it is also so official doctrine of many Churches. However, this book gives evidence, that this is not the case.
The early church was a very heterogeneous bunch of people. Besides the two main parties, the Arians (who believed that Jesus was not God) and the "Orthodox" who believed that Jesus was God, many other fractions had opinions somewhere in between or even further to the extreme. Extreme Ariens believed that Jesus was a man of supreme morals, who could be a role model for other men and who was subsequently "adopted" by God. Other extremists believed that Jesus was God on Earth without any human trace.
The reason, why the present day Christian "doctrine" was shaped seems to be a mixture of bad luck (lost wars by Arien Emperors against intruding barbarians were counted as a sign of God) and the influence of individual persons (strong anti-Arien bishops like Athanasius of Alexandria and Ambrosius of Milan). Clearly not because it was "God's only true faith". More, because the spiritual ideas of the fourth century AD were more in favour of God's Kingdom in Heaven than of Men's Kingdom on earth, the direct result of the decline of the order and safety of the Roman Empire and the invasion of "Barbarians". People needed a God like creature, who would raise them after their death into paradise, and not a spiritual and moral leader, who would allow them to improve their live on earth. Hence the wise moral leader became God.
But the idea of the trinity (God, Son and Holy Spirit), never really took roots in the eastern Empire. So a few centuries later it was possible by the Moslems to erase this form of "Polytheism" within decades, and people readily accepted the reduction of Jesus to a prophet of the one God, his role in the Muslim faith.
Rating:
Summary: Defining the Orthodoxy
Review: The doctrinal debate over Christ's divinity roared throughout Constantine's Roman Empire. Two sects were locked in a pitched and sometimes violent struggle to define the divinity of Christ. To varying degrees the Arians of the Eastern Empire believed that Christ and God were essentially similar but that They were not equal or the same. Followers of Athanasius argued forcefully for Christ's full divinity.
Compromise on this point of Christ's divinity was ostensibly impossible to attain. In response, Constantine, in varying degrees, cajoled and encouraged his bishops to reach an accord, believing that a religious heterodoxy was not in the best interest of the Roman Empire or Christianity. Constantine, while not impartial in this struggle, did not impose his will by decree. The bishops themselves believed that they were in a locked battle and did not always turn the other cheek. This debate did not get resolved during Constantine's life. It was not resolved until Theodosius became emperor and imposed orthodoxy across the Empire. The Nicene faith or creed was a result of this struggle of ideas.
Rubenstein is not a professor of religion, so this is not a book on theology. More to the point, he is American Jew and a professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University. Rubenstein is passionate about this subject and as a result his writing is refreshing and reflects his deep interest without ever sounding pedantic. He lays out the debate and lets history tell the story without sacrificing objectivity. I highly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Great History of the Events Surrounding the Arian Con
Review: As a bible believing Christian who is also interested in truth, I found this book to be unbiased, historically accurate, balanced, and filled with interesting information.
I never realized that the Council of Nicene was just the start of the controversy and resulted in numerous Church coucils. It also shows that the Christianity that existed at that time had to be apostate because both sides organized violent mobs to riot against the other side. Churches were burned, people were killed, outright murdered.
Rubenstein does not make such moral judgments, he merely reports the facts of history, which I am very greatful for. How can we trust Christians to tell the truth about what happened?
It reveals how Arius suddenly grabbed his stomach and ran to the toilet only to be found laying beside it, dead. Posion was the weapon of choice among many Romans. It is clear then, that Arius was murdered by his opponents.
Would you accept a doctrine that was the result of a power struggle within Christian churches which included violent mobs beating and killing those of the opposing side? Is the proper way to get doctrine, outlawing all those who do not agree with a particular doctrine? I would say NO to both. But that is what happened within Christianity in the fourth century.
THIS BOOK IS A MUST READ FOR ALL WHO DESIRE TRUTH
|
