The Corruption of Christ’s Message

The Corruption of Christ’s Message

The erosion of the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ serves as both the seed and the catalyst for postmodern secular humanist thought. Rather than a progression toward rationality, this decline marks a deep intellectual crisis within Christendom itself.

As a result, modern man drifted further from the inherent truths embedded within him, replacing them with reactionary ideologies born from this spiritual and philosophical decay. To address this, one must first grasp that historical trajectory, underlying causes, and far-reaching consequences — an overview of which this section aims to provide.

It can be argued that the divergence of Judaism, Christianity, and Islām returns to their distinct perspectives on the nature of Prophethood. Prophets are emissaries, sent by God as a source of mercy to guide humanity towards Him. Through their words and actions, these Prophets provide the pathway or ‘logos’ for establishing direct communion with God.

“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, ‘Worship Allāh and shun false gods…’”67

Throughout their histories, the Jews interpreted the words and actions of Prophets as just means to establish laws, diminishing the significance of the Prophets themselves to mere message-carriers. They even accused many Prophets of heinous crimes and harboured hostility towards them. Consequently, they vainly believed they could better uphold the message than the very individuals chosen by God for conveyance.

The Christians, by contrast elevated and deified the prophets and messengers beyond their reality, exalting Prophet Jesus (‘Isā ‘alayhi al-salām) to the role of a Divine Intercessor, or as God Himself.68

Islām re-established the Abrahamic reality of Prophethood that Musā (‘alayhi al-salām), ‘Isā (‘alayhi al-salām) and Muhammad ﷺall truly represent. Abraham (Ibrahīm ‘alayhi al-salām), for instance, embodies the human reflection and manifestation of the One God’s message, such that his character and actions are its direct consequence and expression.

The message and the messenger are inseparable. Yet present-day Jews often emphasise the message at the expense of the messenger, whereas present-day Christians tend to uphold the messenger at the expense of the message.

While laying the foundations of western civilisation, such distortions have resulted in the west’s peculiar, diminished outlook on religion in the modern day. The absence of such distortions in the preserved tradition of the Final Messenger ﷺ puts it in the best position to resolve them.

The Present-Day Version of Jesus’s Message – The New Testament

According to the Gospels, John the Baptist’s ministry is portrayed as a preparation for Jesus’ mission on earth. Jesus’ baptism by John is seen as the starting point of his mission on earth, during which he travels, preaches, and performs miracles. The ‘Last Supper’ in Jerusalem with his Disciples is then seen as the final chapter of what Christians refer to as ‘Jesus’ Ministry’.

The New Testament is the second part of the Christian Bible, while the Old Testament is its first part. The former centres on the teachings, life, and events related to Jesus and the early Christian era during the first century. The Old Testament, on the other hand, is primarily based on the Hebrew Bible and is equally revered as sacred scripture by Christians, alongside

the New Testament. The New Testament is split into four sections:

1. The Gospels, which are the narrations of Jesus’s life.

2. The Acts of the Apostles, which contain the lives of Jesus’s Twelve Disciples.

3. The Epistles, which are the letters of Paul to various early churches.

4. Revelation, is of an apocalyptic nature, speaking primarily of prophetic visions concerning the signs of the end of times.

The Gospels within the present-day Bible are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. These are assumed, by some, to have been written by the Apostles, four of Jesus’ closest Disciples, tasked to spread the message of Christ.

On scrutiny, only Matthew and John appear as names of Apostles. Luke, who is also considered to have authored the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ was, instead, a Greek Physician, who spent much time with Paul of Tarsus, neither of whom met Jesus in person. There is much debate as to whether Luke was a Hellenistic Jew, meaning a Jew who primarily followed Greek customs and embraced at least some of their philosophies, or

a gentile Christian, meaning of non-Jewish extraction, who followed Christ and upheld some of the teachings of Judaism. This is a very important distinction that we will elaborate on later.

The Gospels were written between 70-110AD in Greek. There is no consensus among scholars on the identity of any of the Gospel writers. The choice of the Greek language makes it probable these were written by the Greek followers of the Disciples or early missionaries who themselves would have spoken Aramaic, the language of Christ.

Although Greek was the language used by the nobility, Aramaic was prevalent among the peasantry. The choice of Greek as the scriptural language indicates not only the Greek cultural influence on these writings (and writers), but the target audience the writers had in mind and the language they would have selected to sit well with that audience.

There is also evidence to suggest that between 15-20 additional Gospels were lost, suppressed or subsequently destroyed after the Ecumenical Councils. These are often referred to as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanon texts.

The Early Followers of Christ

The earliest ‘Christians’ were referred to as the Nazarenes and were Jews by faith and practice, like Christ, holding that Jesus Christ was the anointed Messiah. It must always be remembered that Jesus Christ spoke mainly to the Jewish

people around him and all Twelve Apostles were Jews. For these early ‘Christians’, Jesus Christ came to re-establish the sincere worship of the One God and to uphold the Mosaic Law, that is, the Law of Moses, providing as a pathway to God. Contrary to seeing themselves as a new religion or deviant sect, they saw themselves as marking the return to the authentic, Mosaic pathway.

“And (remember) how I (Allāh) inspired the Disciples, ‘Believe in Me and My messenger!’ They declared, ‘We believe and bear witness that we fully submit (to Allāh).’”69

Amongst these Nazarenes (Jewish followers of Christ) were the Ebionites. These were an assortment of ascetic Jews seeking the pleasure of God through the renunciation of the World. The Ebionites saw Jesus (‘alayhi al-salām) as the Messenger of God and the messianic prophet like Moses, prophesied in the Torah. These early Jewish-Christians, like Jesus maintained the Judaic Law.

Fittingly, the Ebionites completely rejected the Pauline Epistles and considered Paul to be a false apostle and an apostate from the law for not keeping the Torah. They also levelled other moral claims against Paul such as claiming that his conversion to Judaism (from Greek Hellenism) was only to

marry the daughter of the High Priest. When she rejected him, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and the Judaic Law.70 It seems some of their understanding was later formalised in the works of Arius of Alexandria, who also maintained the humanity of Christ, and this creed was subsequently known by its detractors as ‘Arianism’.

Though the expression ‘son of God’ was used by some proponents of Arianism, the term meant quite literally ‘God’s Man’, ‘God’s Servant’ or Prophet of God. There was never any intended commonality (co-eternality or co-equality) between the Eternal Infinite Creator and the temporal, limited creation. The expression ‘son of God’ was simply used as a title for Prophethood or for those close to God as evident in the Bible where it is given to many of God’s righteous servants.

The same was used in the Old Testament as a title for the Prophet David71 and the New Testament for the Prophet Ādam72 among many others. Similarly, among those groups, the expression ‘God, the Father’ did not intend to invoke any commonality between the Creator and the created. Indeed, ‘co-equality’ with God was at the core of Arianism’s contention with what would become mainstream Christianity as explained later.

The Hellenistic Seeds of Present-Day Trinitarian Christianity

The establishment of the present-day Christian Creed is less a function of scriptural text and more a function of the sociological and cultural sensibilities of the then dominant Greco-Roman civilisation. One can argue that the decay of Christian theology roots back to its adoption of the prevalent cultures and narratives, not dissimilar to how religious ‘progressivism’ submits to the prevalent narratives of the modern day.

Amongst the earliest non-Jews to respond to the teachings of Jesus (‘alayhi al-salām) were the Greek and the Romans (Latins).

Greek tradition and mythology, with its pantheon of gods, contained the concept of a demigod or ‘half-god’, born of a god father and human mother and through heroic deeds ascending to the status of god. Such examples include Perseus, Theseus and Hercules, believed to be the offspring of divine beings and human mothers, “caught between two worlds and belonging to neither.”73

The Roman culture, which itself was an offshoot of Greek tradition and mythology had become infatuated with the Persian Cult of Mithraism. Mithraism was influenced from the

Avatar concept within Hinduism. This states that God manifests himself in created form, often in human form to guide mankind.

Hinduism, also contains the concept of three gods – the Trimurti, representing the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction, Brahma; the creator god, Vishnu the preserver god and Shiva; the destroyer god. Although distinct in some of its features from the present-day Christian trinity, it shows a pre-existing familiarity with deifying a divine triune within Persia, later finding its way into Rome.

The Roman Emperor himself was also often referred to as the ‘son of God’ (Divi Filius), prior to Christ or even ‘Divus Julius’ or ‘the Divine Julius’, as afforded to Julius Caesar after his assassination in the year 44BC. The emperor was often seen as a divine figure who ruled by the authority of the gods.74

One of the focal points of ancient Roman religion was the revered Capitoline Triad consisting of three worshipped deities, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. This elaborate temple, situated on Rome’s Capitoline Hill (Latin Capitolium), served as a sanctuary where worship and devotion were offered to these three deities. The Triad was not a marginal idea, but, according

to Roman Art academics occupied “a chief place in the state religion of Rome.”75

The Role of Paul in Shaping Trinitarian Christianity

Paul, also known as Saul of Tarsus, played a significant role in spreading his version of the teachings of Jesus during the first century. The ‘Acts of the Apostles’ provides the main source on Paul’s life and works, with about half of the content speaking about him.

Paul was brought up as a strict Pharisee – a very legalistic and literalistic Jew in the ancient Greek City of Tarsus (present-day Turkey). He was familiar with the Greek culture and was immersed within the Greek language. According to Acts, Paul initially persecuted the early Christians, or Jewish converts to Christianity in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

According to his own writings, Paul then claims to have had a transformative encounter with the risen Christ (after his presumed crucifixion) on the road to Damascus, and from then on, his life took on a new direction. He was baptised and began proclaiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah and the ‘son of God’.

Consistent with his Hellenistic origins, Paul, more than other New Testament writers, exalts the nature of Christ from

Prophethood to divinity or a component of it. He refers to Jesus as the son of God76, the image of the invisible God77, and the one in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.78 He speaks of Christ’s pre-existence and his role in creation.79 Paul also presents Jesus as the one through whom believers receive salvation and reconciliation with God.80 81

These ideas became the backbone to the development of early Christian theology, particularly in shaping the later notions and deceptions around the nature of Christ, becoming a feature of the ecumenical debates that are discussed later.

Importantly, Paul was not one of the original Twelve Apostles who were personally chosen by Jesus during his earthly ministry. Though, in his writings, Paul claims to have received a direct ‘revelation’ from Jesus, commissioning him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (non-Jews) and affording him the status of Apostle. He founded Christian communities in Asia Minor and Europe between the mid-40s and mid-50s AD.

In his letters, which often diverged from the views he expressed to Jesus’ Apostles, Paul argues that circumcision, in particular, among other Jewish customs are not necessary for

Gentile converts to become part of the Christian community. He reasons that Gentiles could be saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone, and that requiring them to follow Jewish customs would be burdensome and unnecessary. Paul embarked on three missionary journeys, sharing his eccentric understanding of the Christian message with non-Jewish communities in various regions as described in the Acts.

Up to 14 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul. Due to their significant divergence from the Apostles, some have referred to his specific doctrines around Christ as ‘Pauline Theology’ or ‘Paulism’, as if a different religion unto itself. And since they dominate the New Testament, most of contemporary Christianity follows the same.

Paul’s open undermining of the sacred laws and prophetic practices reveals his oblivion to their pervading spiritual necessity. These were practiced by Abraham, Moses and Jesus, who are examples of how to live in the obedience of God and were intended to persist throughout the monotheistic traditions.

Paul reduced these vehicles of spiritual ascension to hollow, arbitrary and superfluous customs and traditions. Essentially, when Paul severed Christianity from the very practices that anchored it, it set the stage for its eventual detachment from the core tenets of Monotheism altogether.

Paul’s Role in the Pivotal but Historically Overlooked Council of Jerusalem (c. AD 48–50)

Centuries prior to the famous Council of Nicaea in 325AD was the pivotal Council of Jerusalem taking place c. AD 48–50. Interestingly, the Council of Jerusalem is not considered an ‘Ecumenical Council’ because it did not involve the participation of bishops from all regions of the Christian world (as the Christians were still centralised in the region of Christ’s ministry).

As such, despite the significance of the Council of Jerusalem in shaping the future of Christianity and being attended by some of the 12 Apostles who had seen Jesus including James who was called the ‘Brother of Jesus’, Peter and John, 82 it remarkably tends to be given little attention by contemporary Christian denominations.

The purpose of the council was to address a pivotal question — one whose implications would echo to the present day: were Gentile Christians (ethnically non-Jewish converts) obliged to follow the Mosaic Law observed by the Jews? The council was prompted by some Judaic Christians from Jerusalem who insisted that Gentile Christians from Antioch in Syria should be circumcised according to Jewish customs.

To resolve the matter, a delegation led by Paul and his companion, St. Barnabas was appointed to meet with the

church elders in Jerusalem and engage in discussions. According to Acts, written by Paul’s companion, the council eventually determined that Gentile Christians did not need to observe the Mosaic Law or specifically the ‘Levitical ceremonial regulations of the Jews’ except for what became known as the Apostolic Decree: that all followers of Christ are to (still) abstain “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”83

Unfortunately, there is little textual evidence detailing how the Disciples themselves perceived the conclusions of the Council of Jerusalem, or the opinions and conduct of Paul, particularly since Paul was its primary spokesperson and the main source through which its proceedings were conveyed.

If the accounts of the Council of Jerusalem are accurate, it appears that Jesus’ Apostles were willing to forgo the stipulatory requirement of circumcision (in particular) for converts to facilitate their entry into the faith. However, their firm insistence on upholding other prohibitions —such as abstention from food sacrificed to idols and the forbiddance of fornication— enforced their commitment to maintaining fundamental creedal principles and essential moral laws.

For Paul, however, this minor concession appears to have become a gateway to something far broader—an opportunity to justify severing the faith almost entirely from the Mosaic Law and the very creed that Jesus himself upheld. In fact, Paul

audaciously continued to operate separately to Jesus’ elected Apostles, preaching what he called his own ‘Gospel.’ The notable chronological gaps in meeting the Apostles (for guidance and education) suggests there was one Christianity before Paul, and a completely different one after.

Paul’s Spiritual ‘Revelations’ or an Aversion to the Disciples?

Paul’s meeting with the Apostles was not only sporadic but marred by tension, disagreement and what seems to be jealousy for their direct choosing by Jesus and not his. In his letters, he sarcastically refers to the leaders of the Jerusalem church and Jesus’ Apostles, James, Peter and John as the “so-called pillars of the church”, “those reputed to be somebody” and adds that “what they are means nothing to me.”84

In one of his later writings, he asserts “I am not the least inferior to these super-Apostles”, expressing a serious personal animosity to their status as scholarly pillars and leaders of the Christian world. He even blasphemously calls them “false Apostles…disguising themselves as Apostles of Christ.”85

Circumcision for him, though a practice of Christ himself and Abraham before him was reprehensible and worthy of mockery. He preposterously states, “look out for the dogs, look

out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.”86 87

In his letters, Paul denies that his final visit to the city was actually a summoning to Jerusalem by the Apostles as the Book of Acts infers. On this visit, Jewish-Christians who were significantly concentrated in Jesus’ homeland reprimanded Paul for not preaching the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem, referencing Paul’s teaching to the gentiles that they could “eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience”.⁸⁸ Although Paul qualifies this instruction when the food is explicitly identified as sacrificial, his permission to eat without enquiry sits in tension with the Apostolic Decree’s instruction to abstain from food sacrificed to idols.

In his letters, he stresses that his gospel came through ‘revelation’ from Jesus rather than human instruction, and that he did not immediately consult the Apostles.^{89 90} His appeal to these personal revelations effectively places his claimed authority above the experiences of those who had accompanied Jesus. Paul brags about having worked harder than any of them,⁹⁰ downplaying those who had intimately known Jesus, face-to-face as an experience of mere flesh, far beneath his superior, (tenuous) ‘visions’.⁹¹

Paul’s reference to his message as ‘my Gospel’ was to formally dispel any commonality with the Torah, severing his teachings from it and deeming it obsolete by affirming a new Torah of Christ.92 He stopped short of outright denying the God of Israel, but claimed that alongside this God was a heavenly lord, of a cosmic family; Jesus, that the whole universe was in obedience to.93

Pivotally, by the revocation of Mosaic ‘customs’, Paul’s inordinate influence above those who had met, lived and were chosen by Christ paved the way for ‘Christianity’ to become a completely distinct religion, not only severed from customs, as was Paul’s purported intention, but from the Judaic creedal texts and immutable realties that stressed the Oneness of God. Above all, this separation also seemingly allowed later ‘Christian’ bishops to ignore the Old Testament’s fundamental commandment altogether:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”94

Ultimately, Paulism expedited a rapid decline in rationality and religious understanding found within the pure, monotheistic way, moving it away from the truths imbued

within man and ultimately forging the many counter ideas present in the modern day.