Christian theology

=====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.