The True Christians: Rejection of Christ's Divinity

[Enlightened]

Many of us know that one of the major differences between Islam and Christianity are the discussion surrounding Christ's divinity. We Muslims say he was a prophet and a messiah who was born from a virgin (Mariam/Mary). All mainstream Christian denominations say that he was the messiah as well as being God. The idea is actually more complex than that since he is not simply God incarnate but part of a trinity which is what their faith is based on. The idea is that the Father (God in heaven), Son (God on earth) and Holy Spirit (spirit of revelation) are actually one and the same. According to this article of faith, God is present in all these three forms at all times, therefore Jesus is also God although he is often described as the son of God.

Aside from the current forms of Christianity, there were sects in past times which totally rejected the concept of trinity and as such, claimed that Jesus was not God, hence not worthy of worship. This is of course something that very few people know about in early Christian teachings. As a matter of fact, it was an entire movement but which was eventually persecuted and its adherents martyred (otherwise, killed).

Here is what wikipedia has to say about Arianism (the most prominent of these movements):

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250�¢??336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the persons of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God as being a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337�¢??361) and Valens (364�¢??378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

Now I know what you guys will say, they still claim he is the son of God, that's still blasphemy. My opinion is that this is a mere metaphorical use of the original ancient Greek script used to write the first bible. The evidence for my claim will be represented below:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, �¢??Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?�¢?��

62 �¢??I am,�¢?�� said Jesus. Mark 14:61

Now all of this seems fine and dandy to Christians. But wait a second, did you notice something wrong? The Jewish Rabbis of the Sanhedrin asked him if he was the messiah, the son of the Blessed one... Last time I checked Jews do not believe that God has a son! Yet the question is posed in a manner that suggests that Jews were expecting the son of God, therefore they were dualists or trinitarians, which simply could not be true. If anything, this proves that their usage of the word son of God was merely metaphorical since the messiah that Jews expected (and they still expect him to come) was prophesied to come from virgin birth. Similarly, a lot of the verses Christians use to justify worship of Jesus as God could in most cases be given a metaphorical interpretation, for he never claims to be God using direct word such as: 'I am your LORD, worship me' or 'I am God'.

As a matter of fact, there is a minority of Christians nowadays who are Non-Trinitarians and are denounced as heretics/apostates by Christians (mainstream). I hope I brought some insight into the nature of Christianity and the conflict between Trinitarian emperors/churches and the singled out Non-Trinitarians. The poor fellows faced severe persecution and death by the church, their faith was literally eradicated for almost 17 centuries.