23
This shows that the divine will was in heaven, not on earth.
Similarly, in John 5:30, Jesus says:
"I can do nothing on my own accord. I judge according to
what I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek
my own will but the will of the one who sent me."
Here, he clearly refers to the will of “God the Father”, not the
will of “God the Word”!
Moreover, the notion of two wills existing within the same
person is nothing more than philosophical speculation
without any real foundation. It is mere wordplay and a
contradiction in terms. Even if we assume that Jesus' human
will was entirely subordinate to the divine will, what purpose
would it serve if it had no function whatsoever?
4. The analogy of iron and fire is a flawed
comparison:
This analogy is merely philosophical rhetoric and wordplay,
making it unfit to be included in religious texts or used as
evidence. Fire does not unite with iron, once the iron cools,
the heat disappears. Similarly, fever does not merge with the
mind when it causes a high temperature, nor does illness
become one with the body. Countless other examples can
illustrate this point.
There is a significant difference
between saying that the two natures
united and became one person and
saying that fire indwelled in iron,
affecting it by heating it, without them
becoming one entity, -or fire turning
into iron, or taking the form of iron.
24
However, the Church claims that Christ is "God the Word
incarnate" or "God-man," which implies an eternal and
inseparable union, where the two natures became one
person.
As for the argument that the crucifixion and death affected
only the human nature, not the divine, this actually proves
that the entire doctrine is a staged fabrication.
For example: Suppose a man named Mark needs surgery, but
instead, he unites with another man named Luke and tells him
to undergo the operation in his place. Mark remains “united”
with Luke by holding his hand while Luke is in surgery. The
operation is performed on Luke, but they insist on claiming
that Mark is the one who underwent the surgery!
Likewise, the doctrine of crucifixion and redemption is based
on the idea that the one who was crucified must be infinite,
that is, God Himself [Glorified and exalted is God beyond
such attributions]. Yet, the Church says that the one who was
crucified was the human nature, not the divine! The Church
provides an analogy stating that just as a hammer striking
iron does not affect the fire within it, so too, crucifixion and
death did not affect the divine nature at all!
5. The phrase “having two natures: one divine and
one human” is a misleading expression:
The word "nature" has only three possible meanings:
1. "Nature" as a characteristic or trait:
For example, we say that a person has both a good nature
and an evil nature, sometimes he behaves kindly, other times
cruelly, but he remains the same person.
If Christ had two natures, then this would mean that he was
one person, but sometimes God and sometimes a human,
25
which the Church rejects because they believe he was fully
God and fully human at all times.
2. "Nature" as a person:
This would mean that inside Christ were two persons, one
divine and one human. However, this contradicts the
Church’s belief that Christ is one person.
3. "Nature" as an essence or substance:
This implies that Christ possesses two essences: one divine
and one human.
However, by doing so, the Church has essentially created a
new god with its own hands, because essence refers to the
very being or nature of something, its reality, identity, origin,
substance, and fundamental components.
How can a divine essence be merged with a human essence?
How can a divine essence be united with earthly dust, which
is the essence of human beings?
6. The statements of Cyril the Great and
Athanasius the Apostolic are merely philosophical
ideas without any religious foundation:
Both of them lived in the 4th and 5th centuries and were part
of the Alexandrian School, which leaned heavily toward
Platonic philosophy and allegorical interpretation of
doctrines. The scholars of Alexandria were primarily
concerned with Christ’s divinity rather than his humanity.
Their statements have no foundation in the Bible, Christ’s
teachings, or the teachings of his disciples, -or even the
teachings of Paul!
Thus, their statements are mere philosophical ideas that
cannot serve as the foundation of a religious belief.
26
Moreover, their views contradict the teachings of earlier,
more knowledgeable Church fathers, as well as those of other
theological schools, such as the Antiochian School.
The Antiochian School focused on concrete, tangible realities
and relied on literal interpretation of Scripture rather than
symbolic interpretations. It also based its teachings on
historical facts, rational analysis, and the writings of early
Church fathers.
27
Chapter Three
At Christ’s death, which spirit departed: his
divine spirit or his human spirit?
The Reason for Claiming That Christ Had Two
Spirits:
According to Christian doctrine, Christ was crucified, died,
and his spirit left his body. This raises a fundamental
question:
How can God die?
God is eternal and does not die, so Christ’s death
invalidates his divinity, which in turn would
undermine the doctrine of sin and atonement.
Moreover, Christ’s death means that his lifeless body became
worthless, as it became a just body without a spirit. But how
could the body of God be worthless?
Since "God the Word" took on a human body, it means that
this body became divine because God had incarnated in it.
Furthermore, since Christ’s spirit returned to that body at his
resurrection -as the Church claims-, this means that it is
undoubtedly a sacred body, one that could not have been
devoid of a spirit, not even for a single moment!
Thus, a completely new idea was invented, -one that no one
had ever thought of before-, which is that Christ’s body
contained two spirits, one divine and one human, which were
united with his human body and never separated from it, not
even for a single moment—not on the cross, not at death, and
not even after death!
28
Did the divine spirit also depart from Christ’s
lifeless body?
1. The claim that the divine spirit remained united with the
human spirit after leaving Christ’s Body raises a crucial
question:
How can two spirits remain united after they have left
Christ’s body?
Imagine seeing two spirits united, would this not imply the
existence of two distinct persons rather than one?
For instance, if Christ’s divine spirit spoke about his body, it
would say, "This is my body."
But if it were to speak about Christ’s human spirit, could it
really say, "This is my spirit" or "This is my human spirit"?
Would it make any sense to claim that God [Glorified and
exalted is He beyond such attributions] has another spirit,
which is a human spirit?!
2. The claim that the divine spirit remained united with
Christ’s lifeless human body after the human spirit departed
defies logic and reason!
This notion is completely irrational and illogical, it could even
be considered one of the seven wonders of the world!
We are speaking about a lifeless body, meaning a body
without a spirit. So how can anyone claim that the divine
spirit was still within the body, yet at the same time, the body
was dead?
Would this not be a contradiction in itself?
Moreover, the phrase "the union of the divine spirit with the
human spirit and body" implies indwelling rather than
incarnation!
29
Who Died on the Cross?
If we say that only the human nature died, this
contradicts the doctrine of crucifixion and
atonement, which requires that the one who is
crucified and redeems humanity must be God
Himself [Glorified and exalted is He beyond such
attributions]!
If we say that God died [Glorified and exalted is He beyond
such attributions], this is impossible because God does not
die.
If we say that both the divine and human spirits died and
departed together from Christ’s body, then this means that
his body was completely lifeless and empty of both natures
(which the Church rejects). Moreover, as mentioned earlier,
God does not die!
Thus, we find that the matter is extremely complex, and
anyone who thinks they fully understand it has actually
misunderstood it!
To clarify how this entire issue is mere wordplay and that the
Church’s excessive exaltation of Christ has led to all these
contradictions, let us revisit a previous example regarding
indwelling:
In Matthew 8:32, it says:
"He told them (to the demons): “Go,” and they came out and
went into the pigs. Suddenly, the whole herd rushed down a
steep slope into the sea and drowned in the water."
When these pigs drowned and died, which spirit left them?
Was it the spirit of the pigs? Was it the spirit of the demons?
Or was it both?
30
Of course, both spirits left, the pigs’ own spirit and the
demons’ spirit.
However, there is an important distinction: the spirit of the
pigs departed as a soul leaving a lifeless body, while the spirit
of the demons departed as an indwelling entity leaving the
pigs’ bodies after possessing and controlling them.
Thus, it was the pigs that drowned, not the demons.
This means that the demons were not incarnated in the pigs;
rather, they indwelled within them. The pigs already had their
own bodies and spirits.
If the demons had incarnated as pigs, this would mean that
they created bodies for themselves in the form of pigs,
without souls, instead of indwelling in already-existing pigs.
Applying This to the Crucifixion of Christ:
From this, it becomes as clear as daylight that it was the
human nature that died, and that God was never inside this
man, because God does not die and never unites with His
creation.
As for the Church’s claim that God was inside Christ, this
means that His presence was indwelling, not incarnation,
and this destroys the doctrine of crucifixion and atonement!
Moreover, as Muslims, we reject both indwelling and
incarnation, [Glorified and exalted is He beyond such
attributions]!
31
Chapter Four
The Different Doctrines on Whether Christ Had
Only a "Divine Spirit and Mind," Only a "Human
Spirit and Mind," or "Two Spirits and Two
Minds"?
1. The Doctrine That Christ Had Only a Divine Spirit
and Mind:
Many clergy, such as Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea [315
382], believed that Christ had no human spirit or human
mind, because "God the Word" was himself the divine spirit
and the mind of God. Therefore, he did not need a human
spirit to give him life, nor did he need a human mind to grant
him free will.
Thus, Apollinaris denied the existence of a rational human
soul in Christ, to avoid the implication that Christ had two
persons: one divine and one human.
He stated that just as a human being is composed of body,
soul, and a rational spirit, similarly, "God the Word Incarnate"
must be composed of a body, soul, and a rational spirit,
which is the Hypostasis of the Word (i.e., his divinity).
2. The Doctrine That Christ Had Only a Human
Spirit and Mind (The Doctrine of Indwelling and
Companionship):
A group of clergy held that Christ had only one spirit, which
was human. According to this belief, the Virgin Mary did not
give birth to God, but only to a human being, into whom the
Spirit of "God the Word" indwelled at baptism and departed
from him before his death on the cross.
32
According to this doctrine, the indwelling of "God the Word"
was in the form of companionship and indwelling, not
incarnation.
This belief was upheld by Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia
[350-428], Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch [200-275],
and Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople [386-450], among
others.
Nestorius, in his Fourth Letter to Proclus
[390-447], wrote:
"They claim that the life-giving divinity is
subject to death and dare to reduce the
Logos (Hypostasis of the Word) to the
level of theatrical myths, as if he were a
child wrapped in swaddling clothes and
then died. Pilate did not kill the divinity,
but rather the garment of divinity."
Nestorius also said:
"I will never call a two- or three-month-old child 'God'."
3. The Doctrine That Christ Had Two Spirits and
Two Minds: One Divine and One Human:
Another group of clergy held the belief that Christ had
two spirits and two minds: one divine and one human.
These were the proponents of the doctrine that Christ
had two distinct natures, one divine and one human,
which will be discussed in detail later, God willing.
33
Refuting the Three Doctrines:
1. Refuting the Doctrine That Christ Had Only a
Divine Spirit and Mind:
1) God, who created time and space, cannot be confined
within a small, limited human body! God created the
universe, yet He is not a part of it and does not dwell within it.
If we compare the size of a human being to the Earth, then
compare the Earth to the solar system, and then compare the
solar system to the trillions of galaxies in this universe, how
can anyone claim that "the Spirit of God"[1] descended and
incarnated in a weak human body?
And all this, allegedly, because God was unable [Glorified and
exalted is He beyond such attributions] to forgive Adam for
eating from a tree?!
[1] In Christian theology, God is a spirit. However, in Islam,
the spirit is one of God’s creations. The Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings be upon him) said: "When the soul is
taken (from the body), the eyes follow it (as it departs)."
(Narrated by Muslim) This indicates that the soul is an actual
created entity with an independent existence.
2) If Christ had a divine mind, then he would be all-knowing,
and his ‘knowledge and will’ would be the same as God's
knowledge and will.
However, many passages in the Gospels confirm that Christ
had only a human mind, not a divine one.
Mark 11:12-14 - Christ’s lack of knowledge
about the fig tree:
34
"The next day, as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was
hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to
find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found
nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you
again.'”
Mark 13:32 - Christ’s lack of knowledge about the Day of
Judgment:
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the
angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
These texts show that Christ was not omniscient, which
contradicts the idea that he had a divine mind.
2. Refuting the Doctrine That Christ Had Only a
Human Spirit and Mind (The Doctrine of Indwelling
and Companionship):
This doctrine undermines the doctrines of original sin,
incarnation, crucifixion, and atonement because its
proponents believe that the one who died on the cross was
"Jesus the human," in whom "God the Word" indwelled but
never truly incarnated.
Moreover, they believe that "God the Word" left Jesus before
his death!
However, the doctrine of atonement requires that the one
who was crucified must be infinite, meaning that he must be
God Himself [Glorified and exalted is He beyond such
attributions] so that his sacrifice would be unlimited and
sufficient to atone for the original sin inherited from Adam.
If only a human died, then the atonement is finite, which
contradicts the very foundation of Christian theology!
35
3. Refuting the Doctrine That Christ Had Two
Spirits and Two Minds, One Divine and One Human:
When another group of clergy realized:
1. That the doctrine claiming "Christ had only a divine spirit
and mind" was incorrect, because it contradicts numerous
Gospel passages confirming Christ’s human personality.
2. That the doctrine claiming "Christ had only a human spirit
and mind" (and that "God the Word" only indwelled in him at
baptism and left before his death on the cross) was also
incorrect, because it would destroy the fundamental doctrine
of Christianity (original sin, incarnation, crucifixion, and
atonement), -since without this doctrine, there would be no
reason for Christ’s coming and no justification for considering
him divine-.
They decided to adopt a compromise doctrine: That "Christ
had two natures: he has both a divine spirit and mind, as well
as a human spirit and mind."
This belief attempted to preserve both his divinity and
humanity, but as we will see later, it also led to serious
contradictions.
This Doctrine Can Be Refuted as Follows:
1. They Made Christ into Two Persons While Claiming He Was
One:
The claim that Christ had two spirits living in one body
contradicts logic and reason. This would mean that there
were two rational persons in Christ: one divine and one
human.
The Virgin Mary could not have given birth to two sons: one
being God and the other a human!
36
2. They Made Christ One Person with Two Minds and Two
Wills:
It is impossible for any person to have two minds or two wills.
The four Gospels confirm that ‘Christ’s will’ was a ‘human will’
distinct from ‘God’s will’.
For example, in John 5:30, Christ states:
"I can do nothing on my own accord. I judge according to
what I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek
my own will but the will of the one who sent me."
In Matthew 27:46, Christ cries out:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Despite these clear statements, the Church made a strange
claim: that Christ’s human will was submissive to his divine
will, thus avoiding any contradiction between them!
However, what kind of logic is this?
The term "two wills" naturally implies "two persons", not "one
person with two wills"!
When Christ said "not as I will", he referred to himself with
the pronoun "I" (regardless of whether the Church claims that
both God and man existed within him).
Then, he directed his words to God, saying "but as You will",
yet he did not say, "as the Son or the Word within me wills."
In Matthew 26:39, Christ prays:
"Going a little farther, Jesus fell
with his face to the ground and
prayed, 'My Father, if it is
possible, let this cup pass from
me. Yet not as I will, but as You
will.'"
37
3. It Confirms the Doctrine of Indwelling and
Companionship:
By claiming that Christ had two spirits, they essentially
confirm that the fetus inside the Virgin Mary was merely the
human Jesus, -a human with a human spirit and body-, and
that "God the Word" then indwelled in him, just as he had
indwelled in Mary’s womb, without uniting or merging with
her.
This completely destroys the doctrine of the incarnation of
"God the Word." because it means that the one who was
crucified was a limited human, not the infinite God!
4. The Creator and the Created in One Body:
If Christ had two spirits, this would mean that the "created
human spirit" was a servant to the "divine Creator spirit".
So how can the Creator be, at the same time, the created?
How could the Creator and the created exist within the same
body?
This would also imply that when Christ prostrated in worship,
both his human spirit and his divine spirit prostrated
together!
5. There Was No Need for a Human Spirit Inside Christ:
The primary function of the spirit is to give life to the body.
Since the Spirit of God was already inside Christ’s body, it
would have been the source of life. So why would he need
another source of life?
6. How Can a Spirit Have Another Spirit?
The Church teaches that the Spirit of "God the Word"
incarnated in a human body, meaning it took on a body like a
garment to appear in it. But how can the Church claim that
there was a second spirit inside Christ?
38
We can understand how a spirit can incarnate, but how can a
spirit indwell within another spirit? A spirit is already a
complete entity, so why would it need another spirit?
The presence of two spirits contradicts the doctrine of
incarnation and confirms instead the doctrine of indwelling
and companionship!
7. How Did the Church Determine That Christ Had a Divine
and a Human Spirit?
How does the Church claim something for which it has no
evidence from Christ’s words, his disciples’ teachings, or the
four Gospels?
Chapter Five
The Emergence of Doctrines About Christ’s
Nature
Due to Gospel passages describing how Christ was struck,
crucified, and died, and how he prayed, fasted, worshiped,
and called upon God, questions arose:
How could he be God himself?
How could the Virgin Mary have given birth to God?
Thus, a theological school emerged that introduced a strange
idea: Christ had two natures: one divine and one human!
However, this idea led to another theological problems:
What is the relationship between these two natures?
How did they unite in one body?
Did they merge or remain separate?
Or did they unite without merging or separating?
Because of these contradictions, many different sects
emerged, each with its own interpretation of Christ’s nature,
including:
1. Monophysitism (One-Nature Doctrine):
This doctrine holds that Christ had two natures, one divine
and one human, but after the incarnation, they merged into a
single divine nature.
According to this belief, the human nature (man) was
absorbed into the divine nature (God), just as a drop of
vinegar dissolves in the ocean.
Thus, Christ was viewed as "one hypostasis and one person
with a single nature: God-man."
39
40
One of the most prominent figures who followed this
doctrine was Eutyches [380-456], the head of a monastery in
Constantinople, which housed over 300 monks.
2. Dyophysitism (Two-Nature Doctrine):
This doctrine asserts that Christ had two distinct natures: one
divine and one human, that remained unchanged, unmerged,
and inseparable after the incarnation.
One of the most well-known proponents of this doctrine was
Pope Leo I (Leo the Great), Patriarch of Rome [died 461]. He
criticized Eutyches' Monophysite beliefs in his letter to
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople [died 449], stating:
"Thus, while preserving the properties of both natures and
substances in one united person, majesty assumed humility,
strength assumed weakness, and eternity assumed
mortality.
Thus, the same one who, while remaining in the form of God,
was the creator of humanity, later became a man himself in
the form of a servant. Each nature retains its own properties
without defect, just as the divine nature does not take away
the form of the servant, nor does the form of the servant
diminish the divine nature.
Thus, the Son of God entered this lowest world, descending
from the heavenly throne, yet not departing from the glory
of the Father, being born in a new order, by a new birth. By a
new order, because the invisible became visible, the
incomprehensible willed to be comprehended; the eternal
began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe took on the
form of a servant, veiling the immensity of His majesty. The
impassible God did not disdain to become a passible man,
and the immortal accepted to be subject to the laws of
death."
41
After Leo’s letter was read at the Council of Chalcedon (year
451), the attending bishops declared:
"This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the
Apostles. We all believe this, and all the Orthodox hold this
faith. Anyone who does not believe this is excommunicated.
Peter speaks through the mouth of Leo. This is the teaching
of the Apostles. This is the true faith."
So, was this the final resolution on Christ’s
nature? No! Other theological schools later
criticized Dyophysitism, as we will explore
further.
3. Miaphysitism (One-Composite-Nature Doctrine):
This doctrine asserts that Christ had two natures, one divine
and one human, but they united into a single nature, the
"nature of the Word incarnate."
The two natures could not be separated, merged, or altered
after their union.
This belief is held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic,
Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Indian Orthodox churches).
When Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria [390-454], saw that
Pope Leo I, Patriarch of Rome and Flavian, Patriarch of
Constantinople, had promoted the doctrine that Christ had
two natures and two wills after the union, he actively sought
to refute this doctrine and said:
"Christ is one. He was invited to the wedding as a man, and he
turned water into wine as God. In all his actions, he remained
one."
42
Dioscorus also cited Cyril of Alexandria, who said:
"The union of the Word of God with the body is like the union
of the soul with the body or the union of fire with iron.
Though they are of two different natures, once united, they
become one. Likewise, Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, one
nature, and one will."
4. Paulicianism (Adoptionism Doctrine):
This doctrine, named after Paul of Samosata, Bishop of
Antioch [200-275], taught that Christ was the Son of God by
adoption, not by nature.
The Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus the human, and later, the
Word of God indwelled in him, making him divine.
Thus, Christ was a man who became divine, not God who
became human. At the crucifixion, the Word of God left him,
and only his human nature died.
5. Nestorianism:
Named after Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, this
doctrine taught that the Virgin Mary did not give birth to God,
but only to a human being, and that the Word of God
indwelled in Jesus at his baptism (when John the Baptist
baptized Jesus, Matthew 3:16), but departed from him before
his death on the cross.
The indwelling of divinity was not a hypostatic union (the
union of the divine essence with the human essence), but
rather an indwelling in the sense of accompaniment.
Thus, there was no union between the human and divine
natures in the person of Jesus Christ; rather, there was
merely a connection between a human being and divinity.
That is, Christ had two distinct hypostases (essences), one
divine and the other human.
43
Therefore, Mary should not be called "Theotokos" (Mother of
God), but only "Mother of Jesus."
The Virgin cannot give birth to God, for the created cannot
give birth to the Creator, and what is born of the flesh is
merely flesh.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bishop of Mopsuestia [350-428] (a
friend of John Chrysostom), taught that:
"God the Word" indwelled in the human Jesus and used him
as an instrument for the salvation of humanity.
The union between them was external (a connection), not a
hypostatic union. Therefore, the link between them was the
human spirit.
The divine essence does not unite with the human essence,
and the divine nature does not unite with the human nature.
He considered 'God the Word' to be a complete person and
Jesus the man to be a complete person. Thus, in Christ, there
were two persons: one divine and the other human, who were
united externally in the sense of a connection. Through this
external union, they were regarded as one person.
The Consequences of These Theological Disputes:
Many other sects emerged, but we cannot mention them all
here. All these doctrines were labeled as heresies by the
adherents of the Miaphysite and Dyophysite doctrines.
It is worth noting that all these so-called "heresies" were
actually led by major bishops, patriarchs, and popes with
large followings across different regions.
For example, Patriarch Nestorius, who was deeply influenced
by the theological principles of the Antiochian School, was
opposed in his Christological doctrine by Pope Cyril of
44
Alexandria, who was deeply influenced by the theological
principles of the Alexandrian School.
In Antioch, theologians and interpreters were more inclined
toward an Aristotelian perspective, focusing on tangible and
visible realities. They relied on a literal interpretation of the
Scriptures, drawing on historical information, rational
analysis, comparisons between biblical passages, and
philosophical theories. Therefore, they focused more on
Christ's humanity and his earthly life rather than on his
divinity.
Antiochian theologians were more Aristotelian, focusing on
historical analysis and logical interpretation of scripture.
As for the Alexandrian School, it was more inclined toward
Platonism and the allegorical interpretation of theological
issues. The scholars of Alexandria were primarily focused on
Christ’s divinity rather than his humanity.
This difference in theological approach became increasingly
intense due to sectarian bias and rivalry over episcopal
positions.
This theological dispute led to the Great Schism of (year 451)
at the Council of Chalcedon, dividing the Church into:
Chalcedonian Churches: These are the
churches that accepted the decisions of the
Council of Chalcedon and affirmed that
Christ has two natures, divine and human,
without mixture or separation. This includes
the Catholic Church and the Eastern
Orthodox Churches in Greece, Russia,
Romania, Serbia, Hungary, and Jerusalem.
Later, the Protestant churches also aligned
with this belief.
45
Non-Chalcedonian Churches: These are the churches that
rejected the decisions of the Council and believed that Christ
has only one nature, the 'nature of the incarnate Word,' which
consists of the union of the divine and human natures into a
single nature without mixture or separation. This includes the
Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches.
Those who rejected the Council’s decisions faced severe
persecution!
46
Chapter Six
The Belief of Christ and His Disciples
After all the previously mentioned statements, opinions,
philosophies, and various doctrines of the clergy, and their
numerous councils held to determine the truth about Christ
and his nature, we will now present, in the simplest way, the
correct belief that Christ and his disciples held, which is
clearly stated in the Bible.
The reason behind all these different doctrines among the
clergy is their excessive glorification of Christ, believing that
he must be God [God forbid], because he was born without a
father and performed miracles. However, they overlooked
the fact that Adam was also created without a father or
mother and that all prophets and messengers performed
miracles as tangible proof of their mission. Performing
miracles does not mean they were gods!
Christ’s Belief That He Was a Prophet and
Messenger of God:
Gospel of Mark 6:4:
"Then Jesus said to them: “A prophet is not without honor
except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own
household!”."
As we see, Christ clearly called himself a prophet and did not
say anywhere that he was God or the Hypostasis of the Word.
Gospel of Luke 13:33:
"Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day, I must continue my
journey, for no prophetcan perish outside of Jerusalem!"
47
The Belief of the General Public That Christ Was a
Prophet:
When Jesus raised a dead young man by the will of God, the
people did not say that he was God, but rather that he was a
prophet.
Gospel of Matthew 21:10-11:
"When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred,
asking, “Who is this?” The crowds answered, “This is Jesus,
the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”."
Gospel of Luke 7:16:
"Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great
prophet has appeared among us, and God has visited His
people!'"
Gospel of John 6:14:
"Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus
did, said, “This is of a truth that prophet that should come
into the world.”."
Gospel of Matthew 21:46:
"But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the
multitude, because they took him for a prophet."
48
The Belief of Christ’s Disciples That He Was a
Prophet:
Peter’s first sermon in Acts 2:22:
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a
man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders
and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know:"
Peter’s sermon in the temple (Acts 3:13):
"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our
ancestors, has glorified His servant Jesus."
Note: Although Peter called Christ a "servant" in the phrase
"His servant Jesus," some translations altered the word
"servant" to "His Son,"! Here is the Greek translation issued
by the official Greek Orthodox Church:
"Ο Θεός του Αβραάμ, του Ισαάκ και του Ιακώβ, ο Θεός των
προπατόρων μας, έδειξε τη δόξα του Ιησού του δούλου
Tου."
Christ’s Belief That He Was Sent Only to the
Israelites, Not for the Atonement of Humanity:
Gospel of Matthew 15:21-26:
"A Canaanite woman from that region came to him, crying
out, “Have mercy on me, o lord, son of David! My daughter is
severely possessed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a
word. So his disciples came and urged him, “Send her away,
for she keeps crying out after us!” He answered, “I was sent
only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman
came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me!” He
replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw
it to the dogs!”."
49
Christ Was Not a Christian, Nor Were His Disciples,
and They Did Not Carry Crosses:
Acts 11:26:
"It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called
Christians."
By the grace of God, this concludes Part One.
