Christian theology

====Attributes of Christ====

=====God as Son=====
{{Main|God the Son}}
According to the Bible, the second Person of the Trinity, because of his eternal relation to the first Person (God as Father), is the [[Son of God]]. He is considered (by Trinitarians) to be coequal with the Father and Holy Spirit. He is [[Hypostatic union|all God and all human]]: the Son of God as to his divine nature, while as to his human nature he is from the lineage of David.<ref>{{bibleverse|Rom|1:3–4}}</ref><ref>Compare.{{Bibleverse|Galatians|4:4}};{{Bibleverse|Jn|1:1–14}};{{Bibleref2-nb|Jn|5:18–25}};{{Bibleref2-nb||Jn|10:30–38}}</ref> The core of Jesus's self-interpretation was his "filial consciousness", his relationship to God as child to parent in some unique sense<ref name="Stagg">Stagg, Frank. ''New Testament Theology'', Nashville: Broadman, 1962.</ref> (see [[Filioque]] controversy). His [[Ministry of Jesus|mission on earth]] proved to be that of enabling people to know God as their Father, which Christians believe is the essence of [[Eternal life (Christianity)|eternal life]].<ref>{{bibleverse|Jn|17:3}}</ref>

God the Son is the second person of the [[Trinity]] in Christian theology. The [[doctrine]] of the Trinity identifies [[Jesus]] of [[Nazareth]] as [[God]] the Son, ''united in essence but distinct in person'' with regard to [[God the Father]] and God the [[Holy Spirit]] (the first and third persons of the Trinity). God the Son is co-eternal with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit), both before Creation and after the End (see [[Eschatology]]). So Jesus was always "God the Son", though not [[Revelation|revealed]] as such until he also became ''the'' "Son of God" through [[incarnation]]. "Son of God" draws attention to his humanity, whereas "God the Son" refers more generally to his divinity, including his pre-incarnate existence. So, in Christian theology, Jesus was always God the Son,<ref>"A brief account of the early Church councils and the Church fathers shows that they adopted the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, and that this doctrine continues in the Church as orthodoxy to this day." Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm Jr., "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son", ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' '''42''' (1999): 461–476.</ref> though not [[Revelation|revealed]] as such until he also became the [[Son of God]] through [[incarnation]].

The exact phrase "God the Son" is not in the New Testament. Later theological use of this expression reflects what came to be standard interpretation of New Testament references, understood to imply Jesus's divinity, but the distinction of his person from that of the one God he called his Father. As such, the title is associated more with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity than with the [[Christology|Christological]] debates. There are over 40 places in the New Testament where Jesus is given the title "the Son of God", but scholars don't consider this to be an equivalent expression. "God the Son" is rejected by [[anti-trinitarians]], who view this reversal of the most common term for Christ as a doctrinal perversion and as tending towards [[tritheism]].

Matthew cites Jesus as saying, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (5:9)." The [[gospel]]s go on to document a great deal of controversy over Jesus being ''the'' Son of God, in a unique way. The book of the [[Acts of the Apostles]] and the letters of the New Testament, however, record the early teaching of the first Christians– those who believed Jesus to be ''both'' the Son of God, the Messiah, a man appointed by God, as well as God himself. This is evident in many places, however, the early part of the book of Hebrews addresses the issue in a deliberate, sustained argument, citing the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible as authorities. For example, the author quotes Psalm 45:6 as addressed by the God of Israel to Jesus.
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]] 1:8. About the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever."
The author of Hebrews' description of Jesus as the exact representation of the divine Father has parallels in a passage in [[Epistle to the Colossians|Colossians]].
*Colossians 2:9–10. "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
John's gospel quotes Jesus at length regarding his relationship with his heavenly Father. It also contains two famous attributions of divinity to Jesus.
*[[Gospel of John|John]] 1:1. "the Word was God" [in context, the ''Word'' is Jesus, see [[Christ the Logos]]]
*[[Gospel of John|John]] 20:28. "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
The most direct references to Jesus as God are found in various letters.
*[[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 9:5. "Christ, who is God over all"
*[[Epistle to Titus|Titus]] 2:13. "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"
*[[Second Epistle of Peter|2 Peter]] 1:1. "our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
The biblical basis for later trinitarian statements in creeds is the early baptism formula found in Matthew 28.
*[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:19. Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name ''[''note the singular'']'' of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. See also [[Great Commission]].

=====Person of Christ=====
{{Main|Person of Christ}}
[[File:Christology Flowchart.PNG|thumb|500px|The various Christological positions, and their names]]
;Only divine?
[[Docetism]] (from the Greek verb ''to seem'') taught that Jesus was fully divine, and his human body was only illusory. At a very early stage, various Docetic groups arose; in particular, the [[Gnosticism|gnostic]] sects which flourished in the 2nd century AD tended to have Docetic theologies. Docetic teachings were attacked by [[St. Ignatius of Antioch]] (early 2nd century), and appear to be targeted in the canonical [[Epistles of John]] (dates are disputed, but range from the late 1st century among traditionalist scholars to the late 2nd century among critical scholars).

The Council of Nicaea rejected theologies that entirely ruled out any humanity in Christ, affirming in the [[Nicene Creed]] the doctrine of the [[Incarnation]] as a part of the doctrine of the [[Trinity]]. That is, that the second person of the Trinity became incarnate in the person [[Jesus]] and was fully human.

;Only human?
{{See also|Jewish Christianity}}
The early centuries of Christian history also had groups at the other end of the spectrum, arguing that Jesus was an ordinary mortal. The [[Adoptionists]] taught that Jesus was born fully human, and was adopted as [[Son of God|God's Son]] when [[John the Baptist]] baptised him<ref>{{Bibleverse||Mark|1:10}}</ref> because of the [[Ministry of Jesus|life he lived]]. Another group, known as the [[Ebionites]], taught that Jesus was not God, but the human [[Moshiach]] (messiah, anointed) prophet promised in the [[Hebrew Bible]].

Some of these views could be described as [[Unitarianism]] (although that is a modern term) in their insistence on the oneness of God. These views, which directly affected how one understood the Godhead, were declared [[heresies]] by the Council of Nicaea. Throughout much of the rest of the ancient history of Christianity, Christologies that denied Christ's divinity ceased to have a major impact on the life of the church.

;How can he be both?
:;What sort of divinity?
{{Main|Arianism}}

[[Arianism]] affirmed that Jesus was divine, but taught that he was nevertheless a created being (''there was [a time] when he was not [in existence]''), and was therefore less divine than God the Father. The matter boiled down to one iota; Arianism taught ''[[Homoiousia|Homo'''i'''ousia]]''—the belief that Jesus's divinity is ''similar'' to that of God the Father—as opposed to ''[[Homoousia]]''—the belief that Jesus's divinity is the ''same'' as that of God the Father. [[Arius]]' opponents additionally included in the term ''Arianism'' the belief that Jesus's divinity is ''different'' from that of God the Father (''Heteroousia'').

Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicea, but remained popular in the northern and western provinces of the empire, and continued to be the majority view of western Europe well into the 6th century. Indeed, even the Christian legend of Constantine's death-bed baptism involves a bishop who, in recorded history, was an Arian.

In the modern era, a number of denominations have rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, including the [[Christadelphians]] and the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]].<ref>{{Cite book|author=Bruce Milne|title=Know the Truth|publisher=Inter-Varsity Press|pages=181–182|isbn=0-8308-1793-X|year=1999}}</ref>

;What sort of amalgamation?
The Christological debates following the Council of Nicaea sought to make sense of the interplay of the human and divine in the person of Christ while upholding the doctrine of the Trinity. [[Apollinaris of Laodicea]] (310–390) taught that in Jesus, the divine component took the place of the human ''[[nous]]'' (''thinking''– not to be confused with ''[[thelis]]'', meaning ''intent''). This however was seen as a denial of Jesus's true humanity, and the view was condemned at the [[First Council of Constantinople]].

Subsequently, [[Nestorius]] of Constantinople (386–451) initiated a view that effectively separated Jesus into two persons—one divine and one human; the mechanism of this combination is known as ''hypostas'''e'''s'', and contrasts with ''hypostas'''i'''s''—the view that there is no separation. Nestorius' theology was deemed heretical at the [[First Council of Ephesus]] (431). Though, as seen by the writings of [[Babai the Great]], the Christology of the [[Church of the East]] is highly similar to that of Chalcedon, many orthodox Christians (particularly in the West) consider this group to be the perpetuation of [[Nestorianism]]; the modern Assyrian Church of the East has at times shunned this term, as it implies acceptance of the entire theology of Nestorius.

Various forms of [[Monophysitism]] taught that Christ only had one nature: that the divine had either dissolved ([[Eutychianism]]), or that the divine joined with the human as one nature in the person of Christ ([[Miaphysitism]]). A notable monophysite theologian was [[Eutyches]] ({{circa|380}}–456). [[Monophysitism]] was rejected as [[Christian heresy|heresy]] at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in 451, which affirmed that Jesus Christ had two natures (divine and human) joined in one person, in [[hypostatic union]] (see [[Chalcedonian creed]]). While Eutychianism was suppressed into oblivion by the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, the Miaphysite groups who dissented from the Chalcedonian formula have persisted as the [[Oriental Orthodox Church]].

As theologians continued to search for a compromise between the Chalcedonian definition and the [[Monophysites]], other Christologies developed that partially rejected the full humanity of Christ. [[Monothelitism]] taught that in the one person of Jesus there were two natures, but only a divine will. Closely related to this is [[Monoenergism]], which held to the same doctrine as the Monothelites, but with different terminology. These positions were declared [[Christian heresy|heresy]] by the [[Third Council of Constantinople]] (the Sixth [[Ecumenical Council]], 680–681).

=====Incarnation=====
{{Main|Incarnation (Christianity)}}
The Incarnation is the belief in [[Christianity]] that the second person in the [[Godhead (Christianity)|Christian Godhead]], also known as [[God the Son]] or the [[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]] (Word), "became flesh" when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The word Incarnate derives from [[Latin]] (in=in or into, caro, carnis=flesh) meaning "to make into flesh" or "to become flesh". The incarnation is a fundamental [[theology|theological]] teaching of [[Nicene Creed|orthodox (Nicene) Christianity]], based on its understanding of the [[New Testament]]. The incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second [[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]] of the [[trinity|triune God]], took on a human body and nature and became [[Hypostatic union|both man and God]]. In the [[Bible]] its clearest teaching is in {{Bibleverse|John|1:14}}: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."<ref>McKim, Donald K. 1996. ''Westminster dictionary of theological terms''. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 140.</ref>

[[File:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|right|Jesus, believed to be both man and God, painting by [[Carl Heinrich Bloch]]]]
In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc4_54.htm |title=Jacques Maritain Center: GC 4.54 |publisher=.nd.edu |access-date=2010-08-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150622164244/http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc4_54.htm |archive-date=22 June 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref> in one divine Person, [[Jesus]] Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at [[Christmas]], and also reference can be made to the Feast of the [[Annunciation]]; "different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation" are celebrated at Christmas and the Annunciation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur109.htm |title=Advent Prayer and the Incarnation |publisher=Ewtn.com |access-date=2010-08-08}}</ref>

This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians. Alternative views on the subject (See [[Ebionites]] and the [[Gospel of the Hebrews|Gospel according to the Hebrews]]) have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by [[Mainstream Christianity|mainstream Christian bodies]].

In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "[[Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine)|Oneness]]" has been espoused among various [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of [[Christendom]].

;Description and development of the traditional doctrine
In the [[Early Christianity|early Christian era]], there was considerable disagreement amongst Christians regarding the nature of Christ's Incarnation. While all Christians believed that Jesus was indeed the [[Son of God]], the exact nature of his Sonship was contested, together with the precise relationship of the "[[God the Father|Father]]," "Son" and "[[Holy Spirit|Holy Ghost]]" referred to in the New Testament. Though Jesus was clearly the "Son," what exactly did this mean? Debate on this subject raged most especially during the first four centuries of Christianity, involving [[Jewish Christians]], [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]], followers of the Presbyter [[Arius]] of Alexandra, and adherents of [[Athanasius of Alexandria|St. Athanasius the Great]], among others.

Eventually, the Christian Church accepted the teaching of St. Athanasius and his allies, that Christ was the incarnation of the eternal second person of the [[Trinity]], who was fully God and fully a man simultaneously. All divergent beliefs were defined as [[heresy|heresies]]. This included [[Docetism]], which said that Jesus was a divine being that took on human appearance but not flesh; [[Arianism]], which held that Christ was a created being; and [[Nestorianism]], which maintained that the Son of God and the man, Jesus, shared the same body but retained [[Two Natures of Christ|two separate natures]]. The [[Oneness Pentecostalism|Oneness]] belief held by certain modern [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] churches is also seen as heretical by most mainstream Christian bodies.

The most widely accepted the early Christian Church made definitions of the Incarnation and the nature of Jesus at the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325, the [[First Council of Ephesus|Council of Ephesus]] in 431, and the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in 451. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God: begotten from, but not created by the Father; and fully man: taking his flesh and human nature from the [[Blessed Virgin Mary|Virgin Mary]]. These two natures, human and divine, were [[hypostatic union|hypostatically]] united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ.<ref>* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html The Seven Ecumenical Councils] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429154903/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html |date=29 April 2019 }}, from the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', vols. 2–14 (CCEL.org) Contains detailed statements from each of these councils. The First Council of Nicaea, Council of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon are the "First," "Third" and "Fourth" Ecumenical Councils, respectively.</ref>

;Fortuitous and Necessary Incarnation
The link between the Incarnation and the [[Atonement in Christianity|Atonement]] within systematic theological thought is complex. Within traditional models of the Atonement, such as [[Penal substitution|Substitution]], [[Satisfaction theory of atonement|Satisfaction]] or [[Christus Victor]], Christ must be Divine in order for the Sacrifice of the Cross to be efficacious, for human sins to be "removed" or "conquered". In his work ''The Trinity and the Kingdom of God'', [[Jürgen Moltmann|Jurgen Moltmann]] differentiated between what he called a "fortuitous" and a "necessary" Incarnation. The latter gives a soteriological emphasis to the Incarnation: the Son of God became a man so that he could save us from our sins. The former, on the other hand, speaks of the Incarnation as a fulfilment of the [[Love of God]], of his desire to be present and living amidst humanity, to "walk in the garden" with us.

Moltmann favours "fortuitous" incarnation primarily because he feels that to speak of an incarnation of "necessity" is to do an injustice to the [[Ministry of Jesus|life of Christ]]. Moltmann's work, alongside other systematic theologians, opens up avenues of liberation [[Christology]].

=====Hypostatic union=====
{{Main|Hypostatic union|Chalcedonian}}
[[File:Vladimirskaya.jpg|thumb|upright|A depiction of Jesus and Mary, the [[Theotokos of Vladimir]] (12th century)]]
In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. This view is sometimes called [[Dyophysite]] (meaning two natures) by those who rejected it.

Hypostatic union (from the Greek for substance) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream [[Christology]] to describe the union of two natures, humanity and divinity, in Jesus Christ. A brief definition of the doctrine of two natures can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in two natures: a human and a divine."<ref>Martin Lembke, lecture in the course "Meetings with the World's Religions", Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University, Spring Term 2010.</ref>

The [[First Council of Ephesus]] recognised this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the [[Logos]].

The [[First Council of Nicaea]] declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

[[Apollinaris of Laodicea]] was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the [[Incarnation]].<ref>Gregory of Nyssa, ''Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem''.</ref> Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence– a single hypostasis.

The Nestorian [[Theodore of Mopsuestia]] went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures ([[dyophysite]]) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.<ref>"Theodore" in ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian History'', ed. J. Brauer. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.</ref>

The [[Chalcedonian Creed]] agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the [[Incarnation]]. However, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius.

Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person.<ref>[[Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum|Denzinger]], ed. Bannwart, 148</ref>

As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union."

The [[Oriental Orthodox Church]]es, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known as [[Monophysites]] because they would only accept a definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The [[Chalcedonian]] "in two natures" formula was seen as derived from and akin to a [[Nestorian doctrine|Nestorian]] Christology.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php |title=The Oriental Orthodox Rejection of Chalcedon |access-date=5 October 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080619122112/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php |archive-date=19 June 2008 }}</ref> Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards [[Eutychianism|Eutychian]] Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox have in modern ecumenical dialogue specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term "Miaphysite" to refer to themselves (a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene").

In recent times, leaders from the [[Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Oriental Orthodox]] Churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work towards reunification.

=====Other Christological concerns=====
;The sinlessness of Christ
{{main|Impeccability}}
Although Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus was fully human, the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], for example, states that Christ was 'holy and without evil' (7:26). The question concerning the sinlessness of Jesus Christ focuses on this seeming paradox. Does being fully human require that one participate in [[Fall of man|the "fall" of Adam]], or could Jesus exist in an "unfallen" status as [[Adam and Eve]] did before the "fall", according to Genesis 2–3?

;Kinds of sinlessness
Evangelical writer [[Donald Macleod (theologian)|Donald Macleod]] suggests that the sinless nature of Jesus Christ involves two elements. "First, Christ was free of actual sin."<ref name="macleod220">[[Donald Macleod (theologian)|Donald Macleod]], ''The Person of Christ'' ([[InterVarsity Press]], 1998), 220.</ref> Studying the gospels there is no reference to Jesus praying for the forgiveness of sin, nor confessing sin. The assertion is that Jesus did not commit sin, nor could he be proven guilty of sin; he had no vices. In fact, he is quoted as asking, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" in John 8:46. "Secondly, he was free from inherent sin ("[[original sin]]" or "[[ancestral sin]]")."<ref name="macleod220" />

;Temptation of Christ
'''The temptation of Christ''' shown in the gospels affirms that he was tempted. Indeed, the temptations were genuine and of a greater intensity than normally experienced by human beings.<ref>NRSV; Matthew 4.1–11.</ref> He experienced all the frail weaknesses of humanity. Jesus was tempted through hunger and thirst, pain and the love of his friends. Thus, the human weaknesses could engender temptation.<ref name="macleod226">Macleod 1998, p. 226</ref> Nevertheless, MacLeod notes that "one crucial respect in which Christ was not like us is that he was not tempted by anything within himself."<ref name="macleod226" />

The temptations Christ faced focused upon his person and identity as the incarnate Son of God. MacLeod writes, "Christ could be tempted through his sonship." The temptation in the wilderness and again in Gethsemane exemplifies this '''arena of temptation'''. Regarding the temptation of performing a sign that would affirm his sonship by throwing himself from the pinnacle of the temple, MacLeod observes, "The sign was for himself: a temptation to seek reassurance, as if to say, 'the real question is my own sonship. I must forget all else and all others and all further service until that is clear.{{'"}}<ref name="macleod227">Macleod 1998, p. 227</ref> MacLeod places this struggle in the context of the incarnation, "...he has become a man and must accept not only the appearance but the reality."<ref name="macleod227" />

;Communication of attributes
The communion of attributes (''[[Communicatio idiomatum]]'') of Christ's divine and human natures is understood according to Chalcedonian theology to mean that they exist together with neither overriding the other. That is, both are preserved and coexist in one person. Christ had '''all''' the properties of God and humanity. God did not stop being God and become man. Christ was not half-God and half-human. The two natures did not mix into a new third kind of nature. Although independent, they acted in complete accord; when one nature acted, so did the other. The natures did not commingle, merge, infuse each other, or replace each other. One was not converted into the other. They remained distinct (yet acted with one accord).

;Virgin Birth
{{Main|Virgin Birth of Jesus}}

[[File:Holy Doors.jpg|thumb|upright|Holy Doors from [[Saint Catherine's Monastery]], Mount Sinai, depicting the [[Annunciation]], {{Circa|12th century}}]]
The Gospel according to Matthew and Gospel according to Luke suggest a virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Some now disregard or even argue against this "doctrine" to which most [[Christian denomination|denominations]] of Christianity ascribe. This section looks at the Christological issues surrounding belief or disbelief in the virgin birth.

A non-virgin birth would seem to require some form of [[adoptionism]]. This is because a human conception and birth would seem to yield a fully human Jesus, with some other mechanism required to make Jesus divine as well.

A non-virgin birth would seem to support the full humanity of Jesus. William Barclay: states, "The supreme problem of the virgin birth is that it does quite undeniably differentiate Jesus from all men; it does leave us with an incomplete incarnation."<ref>Barclay 1967, p. 81</ref>

Barth speaks of the virgin birth as the divine sign "which accompanies and indicates the mystery of the incarnation of the Son."<ref>Barth 1956, p. 207</ref>

Donald MacLeod<ref>MacLeod 1998, pp. 37–41</ref> gives several Christological implications of a virgin birth:
* Highlights salvation as a [[supernatural]] act of God rather than an act of human initiative.
* Avoids [[adoptionism]] (which is virtually required if a normal birth).
* Reinforces the sinlessness of Christ, especially as it relates to Christ being outside the sin of Adam ([[original sin]]).

;Relationship of Persons
The discussion of whether the three distinct persons in the Godhead of the Trinity were of greater, equal, or lesser by comparison was also, like many other areas of early Christology, a subject of debate. In [[Athenagoras of Athens]] ({{circa|133}}–190) writings we find a very developed trinitarian doctrine.<ref name=Kesich2007>{{Cite book| last = Kesich | first = Veselin| year = 2007| title = Formation and struggles : the church, A.D. 33–450| page = 159| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=vc0wBCU70NwC&q=Justin+Martyr+christology&pg=RA1-PA154| isbn = 978-0-88141-319-9| publisher = St. Vladimir's Seminary Press| location = Crestwood, N.Y.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html |title=Athenagoras of Athens: A Plea for the Christians |publisher=Earlychristianwritings.com |date=2 February 2006 |access-date=2010-08-08}}</ref> On the one end of the spectrum was [[modalism]], a doctrine stating that the three persons of the Trinity were equal to the point of erasing their differences and distinctions. On the other end of the spectrum were [[tritheism]] as well as some radically [[subordinationist]] views, the latter of which emphasized the primacy of the Father of Creation to the deity of Christ and Jesus's authority over the Holy Spirit. During the Council of Nicea, the modalist bishops of Rome and Alexandria aligned politically with Athanasius; whereas the bishops of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, and Jerusalem sided with the subordinationists as middle ground between Arius and Athanasius.