According to the three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus, on the way to Caesarea Philippi, a few days before the end of His messianic ministry in Jerusalem, asked His disciples a question about their belief concerning His personal identity: “Who do you say that I am?” The answer came from Peter, saying that Jesus was “the Messiah.” Various schools of theology have, over the centuries, given different interpretations to Peter’s answer. All agree that the entire meaning of the Christian experience depended upon it. Indeed, whatever Jesus said, whatever He did, was in virtue of His Messianic ministry;  whatever  he  experienced  on  the  cross, whatever was the concrete reality of his resurrection

–  depended  for  its  ultimate  significance  of  his personal   identity. This significance would be radically different whether he were Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, or an angel (Jewish thought), or a passionless Theophany (Gnostics) or a creature adopted by God (Paul of  Samosata), or one of the many  created  “intellects”  who  did  not  submit  to fallenness  (Origen),  or  whether,  by  meeting  Him, one met Yahweh  Himself, so that Orthodox Jews would fall to   the   ground   hearing    his    name pronounced.

In a sense, all the doctrinal debates of Christian history  can  be  reduced  to  a  debate  on  Christ’s identity. In the period between apostolic times and the   high   Middle   Ages,   various   Christological positions  were brilliantly expressed and defended. However, if one envisages the  fate of the historic catholic    or    orthodox    Christian    tradition,    no Christological stand was as decisive, in terms of the nature  of   spirituality,   as  that  of   two   eminent bishops of Alexandria in Egypt: Athanasius and Cyril.

The achievement of Athanasius is relatively well known. He led the struggle for the faith of Nicaea, which  firmly  proclaimed  the   divinity  of   Christ. Almost   singlehandedly,   he   secured   a   Nicaean triumph. But this victory was not only doctrinal, but also spiritual. The message of Athanasius was that only God himself could properly be seen and adored as Savior. Thus, the divine identity of Jesus, equal to (“consubstantial” with) the Father, was not a matter of   abstract  or   purely   theological   truth,   but   it indicated  “mortal  humanity  which  could  neither save itself nor be  saved by another “creature” and the true nature of God, who being love, performedhimself the salvation of the world.