Christology is a word formed from “Christo” meaning “Christ”, and “logy” meaning “word”. Christology, as said by theologians, is a study of Christian theology on the nature and person of Christ as recorded in the Canonical Gospel and epistle of the New Testament. This involves the relationship of Yeshua’s nature and person with the nature and person of  “The Elohim, Yahweh (God) The Father”.

Christology point of view states the divinity and pre-existence of Yeshua as the “Logos” (“Word”) as expressed in the prologue of the Book of Saint John (St. John 1: 1-4).

In Christology, the doctrine of Christ being the “Logos” has been important to prove the concept of His divinity and He being not only the “Son of God” (Son of Yahweh, the Father), but also “God the Son” in the Trinity as in the Chalcedonian Creed.

According to Kharl Rahner, the perspective of Modern  Christology is to set this precedence in the Christian beliefs that the Elohim (God) became man, and that this man is the Messiah (Yeshua the Christ).

The Messiah’s pre-existence was the eye of the Christological point of view, and so, Christianity  and theologians market it a good ground to convey this basis. While there has been many theological disputes, during the early Christian history, over the nature and person of Christ, Christian theologians continued to ratify their logics that Christ is “God,” Incarnated, “True God” and “True Man” (fully divine and fully human).

Council of Ephesus 431 AD

The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus gathered on deciding the logics of hypostasis (co-existing natures) versus monophysitism (only one nature) versus miaphysitism (two natures united as one) versus Nestorianism (disunion of two natures). At the end of this council, they seemingly agreed on the term of the unions. The definitions on the two natures’ existence became a matter of quarrels within recent times of the early Church. On this note, a council was held in 451 AD.

Council of Chalcedon 451 AD

At the Council of Chalcedon, Eastern Orthodox Church split with differences of opinion about the union on Christ’s “nature” (natures). The Chalcedonian pointing to hypostasis union and the Non Chalcedonian who believed in miaphysitism union decided on debating their cause. At the end, Chalcedonians  agreed on hypostatic union and the Non Chalcedonians objected holding on to miaphysitism.

The Chalcedonian creed did not take root. Instead, the Christological debate continued. On the contrary, the real accomplishment was the definitions on hypostasis and miaphysitism about the natures (divine and human) of the Christ.

This Schism of 451 AD ended with  the Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran Churches and Reformed Churches accepting the Chalcedonian suggestion of Christ’s natures. The Non Chalcedonian (Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox) and some others who rejected, agreed on miaphysitism union.

Opinion of the Christology

As said, Christian philosophy concluded that Christ having become fully human suffered pain of temptation of mortal man, but did not sin. The follow-up was that theologians agreed He rose from His grave as “wholesome” God.

Christian theologians, after defining the nature and person of the Messiah, decided to support their conclusion by adding few logics, one of which refers to St. John 1:1-4. As a result of this, the point of view on His pre-existence was relevant to see Him as”wholesome God.”

 On this ground, I ask this Question:-

Question – Is it that when one say “God”, they mean ”The Father” whose name is Yahweh? Saying “god” does not necessarily mean THE FATHER (YAHWEH).

According to translation, being “god” written in lowercase means inferiority, while “God” written in uppercase gives superiority among the “gods”. However that still gives inferiority to Yahweh, if it refers not to Him.

Christ in fact has achieved the honorary fold of His father, and being the Elohim (God) is one thing, but a few things need clarity.

                                              SEE PART 2 ….



    1. YAHWEH is, and forever will be the “ETERNAL GODHEAD”. Nevertheless, because of man’s transgressions HE sent HIS Son, Yeshua, to represent HIM (YAHWEH). On that note, He (Yeshua) is seen as the Son of YAHWEH (GOD) and more so, the Elohim (God) to us. But note: He (Yeshua) was never seen by the Jews as the “ETERNAL FATHER” (YAHWEH), but a representative.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s