Amazon.com: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (9780156013154): Richard E. Rubenstein: Books

Amazon.com: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (9780156013154): Richard E. Rubenstein: Books




When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome First Edition
by Richard E. Rubenstein (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars 215 customer reviews







ISBN-13: 978-0156013154
ISBN-10: 0156013150Why is ISBN important?
----------------------


Editorial Reviews

Review



"[Rubenstein] has taken one of the major religious controversies of the early Christian church, a controversy that consumed its energies for most of the fourth century, and turned it into a flesh-and-blood encounter of real people that reads like an adventure story."-The Christian Science Monitor
"A splendidly dramatic story . . . Rubenstein has turned one of the great fights of history into an engrossing story."-Jack Miles, The Boston Globe; author of God: A Biography



About the Author



RICHARD E. RUBENSTEIN is professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University and an expert on religious conflict. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, he was a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford University. He lives in Fairfax, Virginia.




Product details

Paperback: 288 pages
Publisher: Mariner Books; First edition (July 10, 2000)
Language: English
More about the author
› Visit Amazon's Richard E. Rubenstein Page


215 customer reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5 stars

Showing 1-8 of 215 reviews

Top Reviews

Dr. Terrence McGartyTop Contributor: Photography
5.0 out of 5 stars

Excellent Retelling of the Nicene Creed ControversiesDecember 23, 2018
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

The book by Rubenstein is exceptionally well written and approachable by the lay reader. It addresses the topic of Christology, namely just what was Jesus Christ, man, God, both, and are there three Gods, one, a blend. This has been a major issue in Christianity. It is a monotheistic religion, namely one God, but in the Gospel writing we see Jesus as Son of God, but equal to the Father, and then the Holy Spirit, somehow a third entity acting upon the Apostles. Add to this mix the background of many in Greek philosophy and Greek philosophical terms. Finally add the ascension of Constantine, the "first" Christian emperor in Constantinople who see a cacophony of voices with opinions on this "Trinity" of Gods, yet being just one God. Rubenstein notes that battles would ensure at bakers, merchants, sailors, bar keeps as to what Jesus and the three really were. To Constantine he needed unity not dissension.

The battle was between, at this time, Arians and non-Arians. Arians saw Jesus as Son of God with all that such a relationship brings. The non-Arians are those who saw unity in the Trinity, unity and equality.

Enter Greek, its words, its meanings, its philosophical underpinnings. Enter also the collection of egos acting as Bishops fighting viciously against opposing sides, seeking the approval of Constantine with execution being the adversarial tactic.

The book takes you from before Nicaea to during the Council to many of the events proximate to its ending. It covers the theological issues, the political intrigues, and the religious infighting. There were Councils after this which settled a few issues but not all.

A key set of observations that the author opines on are:

1. The dominant role of Constantine, who at this point is frankly not even a Christian not having been baptized until just before his death.

2. The lack of almost any role by the Bishop of Rome, now the Pope in the Catholic Church. It would not be until the beginning of the next millennium that the concept of a powerful Pope would evolve.

3. The sustaining of a multiplicity of views in the context of deadly conflict.

In the end Rubenstein alludes to the fact that Mohammed and his interpretation had but one God, the Father if you will, and that Jesus was a prophet, as was Moses and in turn as was Mohammed. This simplicity Rubenstein argues was what the Muslim faith spread so rapidly, it simplified so much of the extreme complexity of the Christology. Yet I would argue that this was but one of the many reasons for its spread. One must remember that Muslim faith spread from about 625 onwards whereas the events in this tale are surrounding the period of Nicaea, 325, three hundred years earlier. I would argue that it also was the oppression of the Emperors in Constantinople, the wars with the Persians, the influx of Germanic tribes and a conflux of many other factors.

There is also the maintaining of the Arian faith amongst the newcomers such as the Lombards which lasts well into the 7th Century. There is the detailed theological work using Aristotle by Aquinas in the 13th century and finally the abandonment of this by Ockham in the 14th century, reverting to faith rather than reason.

The greatest challenge in a book of this type is setting the stage for Greek words and meanings circa the 4th century. Such terms as person, essence, substance, and so forth, have meanings in Greek at the time which were modified from Aristotle and his followers, and then as we get to the Scholastics, modified again, and frankly read today may have no nexus to the reality of the time and place of these arguments. I would like to have seen some discussion of this issue, one which I have struggled with in trying to understand early 7th century works. Add to this the complexity of meanings as one crosses the Mediterranean, from Constantinople to Alexandria, then to Syria and beyond.

Overall Rubenstein does a great job for a book of this type. The writing is clear, focused, organized. The explanation and very reasonable and the interplay with the Greek is included. For anyone interested in the battle with Christology this is a superb beginning.

Creeds and their enforcement are sensitive issues. The Eastern Orthodox Church still has core differences, and even amongst Western churches there are material discrepancies. Thus public shows of reciting one Creed or another can and do often result in conflicts, often based upon gross ignorance of the underlying issues. Rubenstein adds to our understanding greatly.

13 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

ta
4.0 out of 5 starsinterestingJanuary 29, 2018
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This book is a history of the Arian controversy. Rubenstein presents the history mostly from a political perspective instead of a theological perspective — probably because the controversy was much more political than theological. That is, the Trinity Doctrine was finally adopted as a result of politics (force) instead of theology (persuasive Scriptural argument). For a discussion of the theological and philosophical development of the Trinity Doctrine, see First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and Opinions of Some of the Early Fathers, With Special Reference to The Doctrine of the Trinity by Alvan Lamson. Rubenstein’s history shows that, for the most part, Christians did not act much like “Christians” during the Arian controversy. Most preferred traveling the easy road of imposing their view by force, with “a winner take all” attitude, than taking the arduous road of persuasion.

12 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

Clay GarnerTop Contributor: Philosophy
TOP 1000 REVIEWER
5.0 out of 5 stars'Tradespeople felt perfectly competent to debate abstract theological issues and to arrive at their own conclusions'October 11, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
“In a sermon delivered at his church in Constantinople [381], Gregory . . .

“If in this city you ask a shopkeeper for change,” he complained, “he will argue with you about whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you inquire about the quality of bread, the baker will answer, ‘The Father is greater, the Son is less.’ And if you ask the bath attendant to draw your bath, he will tell you that the Son was created ex nihilo [out of nothing].” (6)

Key issue - Son created or eternal?

“Gregory’s wry comment is fascinating both for what it says and what it implies. It suggests that ordinary tradespeople and workers felt perfectly competent—perhaps even driven—to debate abstract theological issues and to arrive at their own conclusions.’’ (6)

This seems. . .different to the modern ear. Analysis, meditation, careful reasoning - what a thought!

“It reveals that disputes among Christians, specifically arguments about the relationship of Jesus Christ the Son to God the Father, had become as intense as the centuries-old conflict between Christians and pagans.’’ (6)

“And it implies that Arianism, which orthodox Christians now consider the archetypal heresy, was once at least as popular as the doctrine that Jesus is God.’’ (6)

“Gregory’s shopkeeper questions whether Jesus Christ is “begotten or unbegotten”—that is, whether he is a creation of God or the Creator Himself. The bath attendant says that he was created “from nothing,” meaning that he was brought into existence like the rest of God’s creatures. And the baker asserts that Christ is separate from and lesser than God. All these are Arian positions, so called because they were developed in sharpest form by an Alexandrian priest named Arius. The ill-fated George was also an Arian: one who believed that Jesus Christ was, indeed, the holiest person who ever lived, but not the Eternal God of Israel walking the earth in the form of a man.’’ (6)

Rubenstein writing as a historian, not a theologian. Hence, although explaining the doctrinal, Biblical, religious ideas carefully and clearly, most of the focus is the political, personal, military, economic influences.

Arias and his fundamental arguments likewise are drawn quickly but throughly. For example. . .

“Was Christ, then, to be considered human? In one sense, the answer was yes. Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, not some divine apparition or mask of God. But his moral genius and the importance of his mission raised him high above even the greatest prophets. The Savior was sui generis. Many Arians believed that the Eternal had somehow conceived him (or conceived of him) before time began, and used him as an instrument to create the rest of the universe.’’

Jesus vital in god’s purpose. Nevertheless. . .

“Even so, they insisted, he could not possibly be God Himself. How could an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator experience temptation, learn wisdom, and grow in virtue? How could he suffer on the Cross and die the death of a human being? Surely, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” he was not talking to himself! When he admitted that nobody knows the day and hour of Judgment, “not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,” he was not just being modest. And when he told his disciples that “the Father is greater than I,” he meant exactly what he said. (6)

This presentation is countered with clear explanation offered by Athanasius. . .

“Yet he had to be both fully human and fully divine, argued Athanasius. Could the death of a mere human being redeem our sins, grant us immortality, and, eventually, resurrect our physical bodies? Of course not! But could Omnipotent God, the Beginning and the End, suffer for our sake without becoming human? The answer was equally plain. Therefore, whether or not it seemed “reasonable” to people schooled in Greek philosophy, Jesus Christ was both true man and true God. Hosius would surely have found this exposition convincing. His people—the people of western Europe—would not accept a Jesus who was too much like them. They knew they were feeble sinners, struggling to survive in a hostile environment. The Christ they wanted and needed was a High God who could save them by His grace and comfort them through the ministrations of His Church.’’

This was one objection. In fact, many Christians still accept this. There was another. . .

“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 Alexander and Athanasius. The Church he needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of His own to save them.’’ (62)

Desire for power, control, authority, was probably decisive.

Wow!

Contents -

An Incident in Alexandria
The Silence of Apollo
A Quarrel in God’s House
The Great and Holy Council
Sins of the Body, Passions of the Mind
The Broken Chalice
Death in Constantinople
East against West
The Arian Empire
Old Gods and New
When Jesus Became God

Principal Characters

Rubenstein’s sociological foundation shows here . . .

“One underlying question was this: To what extent were the values and customs of the ancient world still valid guides to thinking and action in a Christian empire? Some Christians, among them Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, had a stronger sense of historical continuity than others. Those whose ideas and social relationships were still shaped to a large extent by the optimistic ideals and tolerant practices of pagan society, and for whom Christianity seemed a natural extension of and improvement on Judaism, tended to be Arians of one sort or another.’’ (73)

‘Christianity as extension of Judaism’ is obvious. Jesus was a Jew!

“By contrast, the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be “updated” by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.’’

‘Update Jesus!’ What???

“From the perspective of our own time, it may seem strange to think of Arian “heretics” as conservatives, but emphasizing Jesus’ humanity and God’s transcendent otherness had never seemed heretical in the East. On the contrary, subordinating the Son to the Father was a rational way of maintaining one’s belief in a largely unknowable, utterly singular First Cause while picturing Christ as a usable model of human moral development. For young militants like Athanasius, however, ancient modes of thought and cultural values were increasingly irrelevant. Greek humanism and rationalism were shallow; Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith.’’ (73)

The key issue, the decisive idea, was to turn eyes away from the human messiah. Why? Focusing on a mystery, an incomprehensible puzzle, left priests and the church to intercede. Power is good, more is better.

Along with the exposition of the ideas, Rubenstein devotes many pages to analysis of the personalities. Constantine, Arius, Athanasius, Eusebius, etc.,etc.. Outstanding!

Includes a list at the end. Lists about forty names. Excellent!

Two-hundred fifty nine notes. One map. No photographs. Eleven page index (links worked great).

About the author -

“RIchard E. Rubenstein is professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University and an expert on religious conflict. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, he was a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford University.’’

18 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse