Christian theology affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. At the same time, Scripture describes real human limitations during his earthly life (e.g., growth in wisdom, learning, and dependence on ordinary means of communication). Given this, I am asking how Christian doctrine understands Jesus’ knowledge of human languages during his earthly ministry. - Did Christ, by virtue of his divinity, possess complete knowledge of all human languages while incarnate? - Or did the incarnation (often discussed in terms of kenosis) entail genuine limitations such that his linguistic knowledge was exercised within normal human bounds? - How do major Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) reconcile divine omniscience with apparent human limitations in this area?

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher [Charles H. Spurgeon](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63123/6071) . We have a question asking [for the Biblical basis for this belief](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/26253/6071) . This question asks: what is the Biblical basis **against** this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.

Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa *Mayim Chaim* vol. 2 (*Yoreh Deah* §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of *Elohim* this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God. Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description? (Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

So I'm curious if there exist any Christian sects which deny the physical birth of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was born from Mary. Perhaps such a sect would say that Jesus simply appeared from the Heavens and didn't need anyone to bring him into the world.

There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

[Athanasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) and [Apollinaris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) were two important figures in the early church, and both were opponents of Arianism. But while Athanasius is regarded as a faithful defender of sound teaching during this period while Trinitarian Christology was being developed, Apollinaris is considered a heretic because he denied that the Son became a full human in the incarnation, but instead only took on a human body, not a human mind or soul. It has been claimed however, since at least the 19th century, that Athanasius' Christology was essentially Apollinarian. Richard Hanson likened his Christology to that of an astronaut and a spacesuit: > Just as the astronaut, in order to operate in a part of the universe where there is no air and where he has to experience weightlessness, puts on an elaborate space suit which enables him to live and act in this new, unfamiliar environment, so the logos puts on a body which enabled him to behave as a human being among human beings. But his relation to his body is no closer than that of an astronaut to his space suit. (*The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God*, p448) > > We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being. (Ibid, p451) Trevor Hart [says](https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-2_155.pdf) that Hanson followed Baur, Stülcken, Richard, and Grillmeier in interpreting Athanasius as "virtually ignoring the presence of a human soul or mind in the incarnate Christ." This is a big claim, but not one I've heard before. Lots of early church figures have mixed legacies, being instrumental for powerfully and clearly stating true doctrine in some area, while getting it very wrong in another, but Athanasius does not have this reputation. Athanasius and Apollinaris were active at the same time, though Apollinaris outlived Athanasius. A [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24916/6071) has asked whether any of Athanasius' writings about Apollinaris survived, but even if they didn't, enough of Athanasius' writings have survived that we should be able to judge whether this claim has merit. Did Athanasius either deny or ignore that Christ in the incarnation had a human mind and soul?

Both Apollinaris and Eutychius believed in one divine subject Christology that the only and whole person of Christ is a divine person, the Logos. Not a divine-humane person. Their Christology were condemned at Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), respectively. Apollinaris teaches that the Logos supplant the rational faculty of Christ not another man. While Eutychius teaches that the flesh of Christ belongs to the Logos and not another man. So that both teach the Logos, a divine person is the only divine subject. How then one in principle manner differentiate their Christology from one another?

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of _son_ does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so . That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children. Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong. So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in *an overview* of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated. --- NOTES I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question: - If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? - Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that <code class="inline-code ">His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others</code>, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct? - "Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord" Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the _only_ Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the **first century**? What about the **second century** (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records? Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.

According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made. With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God? For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine? John 20:17 (KJV) > Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my > Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my > Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 17:3 (KJV) > "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true > God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

Romans 8:3 says that God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” How is this phrase interpreted in historic Christian theology regarding Christ’s humanity and sinlessness? I’m looking for one well-supported interpretation from any mainstream tradition (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), grounded in Scripture or established commentary.

> Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. > > Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF. > > Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18 So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god? > John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?" If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: > For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/