It is obvious to anyone serious about religious thought that the notion of God's existence (and evidence for that existence) is the most important to us as human beings, but nonetheless this can't help being a bit of a confusing statement. The statement, 'There is no evidence for God' doesn't qualify what kind of evidence it is asking for.

Does it mean scientific and physical evidence of God? If so, then I perhaps have some bad news- as it stands now (pre-supposing that the state of the universe, science and culture will generally remain the same for the time being) there can't be anything along these lines. God is a spiritual entity, a necessary being that has always existed and does not need anyone or anything else to continue existing. Given this, how can we expect to have physical evidence of His existence? Perhaps you would like a few strands of hair that He can't have (since it's a physical attribute), or a scrap of clothing that needs limbs which He doesn't acquire?.

See where I'm going with this? You can't have physical evidence of God as He's a spiritual being (this notion is similar to trying to get physical evidence for an afterlife). This is, of course, ignoring a few other possibilities. Perhaps in the next few minutes after reading this you will experience the 'Final Judgement'. You won't have a choice but to believe in God, but it may be a bit late! Not only this, but you could of course count Jesus as physical evidence for God, if you accept that He was God in human flesh. But even then it won't do you much luck. Depending on what you believe, He either was Resurrected and Ascended into heaven (not many of us can follow Him there, unless you top yourself) or He's a pile of bones. Either way, physical evidence of his existence is not going to work.

So given these qualifications, what can we possibly ask for? We can't ask for physical evidence, as I've established. Some try to say, 'If God exists, let Him strike me down now'. Sounds plausible to the arrogant, maybe, but let's look at it realistically. God is not a cosmic can machine. He is not bent to His creation's demands, and if you think that's a cop-out then so be it. However, such things would be exactly what you'd expect from a Creator God who has His own will and purpose. Let's consider, though, that this arrogant sceptic does indeed get struck down. Be completely honest, look me in the eye, and say that you would bow down to God as soon as you saw it and would not dismiss it and rationalise it away. I don't think many would...

Such things are not possible. However, spiritual and logical evidence, on the other hand, is exactly what you would expect from a spiritual God. Not surprisingly, we can indeed provide some of this. Billions of Christians (and other religious people) worldwide will give testimony to the fact that they have spiritually experienced God. Not only that, but over the millennia philosophers have provided numerous arguments for God's existence, which I guess would cover the logical criteria! 

Like with anything, we're justified in asking, 'Where's the beef?' . Come with me as I try and lay down just a few philosophically meaty arguments. There are many others, and my own presentation of them is a) ignoring for the time being some counter arguments, and b) the aforementioned other arguments that are in existence. You can find rebuttals of (a) and examples of (b) in numerous places on the web. I suggest using some of the Christian search engines and useful apologetics links I have listed on my Home Page to search for such things. It's certainly worth it!

1. Firstly, does this lack of scientific (or 'empirical') evidence disprove God's existence? Of course not! Why does the fact that God isn't a physical Being somehow mean that He doesn't exist? This is ridiculous especially considering that there are many things in this life that we can't measure with science, but we know they exist anyway. For example, the most obvious one would be emotion. I can't pick up a bottle of love off a supermarket shelf, nor can I order some jealousy from my local pharmacy, basically because they're intangible- we can't touch them, smell them, see them etc. However, we can feel and experience these things and as such we know that they exist. It's very similar (if not the same) with God- billions of people around the world claim to have experienced God in various ways, through directly feeling His presence to hearing His word, or to feeling the Holy Spirit. Just because you have not experienced these things does not mean that they do not happen to others. That would be like using your ignorance as a tool of debating. You've probably never seen my mum, but I have, so how can you know that she exists? Well, first off, you can see the effect of her (i.e. me! ). Secondly, I and many others would testify to her existence. I can give you the testimonies of hundreds of her pupil's (she's a teacher), and dozens of testimonies from family members. Given these and many other factors, we can safely say that she definitely existed, and that there is every reason to assume she exists now. Similar criteria can be said to have been fulfilled by God. We can see His effects (from cosmological evidence [see further down the page] to personal testimonies), and we can see His continuing effects and stamps on people's lives and even civilisations! There is no doubt in my mind that experiences of God put forward a very good case for Him existing. If even one of the billions of religious experiences is true then God has to exist. It's far too easy to say that these are the result of psychological diseases, or made up, or lies. Would you say that all of them fill these criteria, every single, life changing one? We should be careful of dismissing people's accounts of religious experiences just because we were not there, that would be similar to you dismissing the existence of my brain even though neither of us has seen it. 
2. Religious Experiences are not the only weapon in the 'Apologetics Arsenal'. Another would be that of prophecy, and the Bible is rife with them. From foretelling the re-establishment of Israel (which occurred in 1948), to Jesus predicting His own resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and Israel's six day war in 1967, there are dozens of examples of prophecies that have since been, or are being, fulfilled. The list is extensive, as such I just cannot give you such a thing. However, I will give you several websites with quite a few on, such as http://100prophecies.org which is incredibly interesting. Perhaps after this you may want to take a look at http://www.aic2001.com/messianic.htm, and http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/questions.htm. There are other links, look on the Home Page for a few more. Not only this, but several sceptics have tried to disprove them, and say that they aren't prophecies at all. For defences, go on www.tektonics.org, or www.christian-thinktank.com to name just a couple. Assuming that they are genuine, however, I ask you to think of the sheer chance of these being fulfilled in several thousand years. In 'The Case for Christ', Lee Strobel interviews Louis. L. Lapides (M.DIV., TH.M.) who states that the chances of just 8 of these prophecies being fulfilled is one in one hundred million billion, which is millions of times higher than the number of people who have walked on the planet! Strobel also quotes Peter. W. Stoner who states that the chances of Jesus fulfilling 48 prophecies is (wait for it)- one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! That's enough to cover the state of Texas in 2-foot high piles of silver dollars! Absolutely amazing and impossible...but it happened .
3. There are also several philosophical arguments for the existence of God, one of which is called the Ontological argument. This was put forward by St.Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century (this guy also pinned the phrase 'I do not understand in order to believe, I believe in order to understand'). He argued a logical proof for God, and it goes as follows- God is the greatest possible being, greater than anything that can be imagined; even if one does not believe in God, we would probably still have this idea of God in our mind, just like a picture exists in the mind of a painter before he has painted it; it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind (like a real £100 note); therefore God has to exist (which is greater than existing in the mind), because if He didn't He wouldn't be the greatest possible being. 
4. This is another philosophical argument, called the Teleological or 'design' argument, and this has existed for centuries but its most popular form was put forward by William Paley in 'Natural Theology' (1804). The idea of a 'designed' universe (or rather one that implies a designer) is fleshed out more in my second article on this page, situated below this one. The argument goes as follows- if one was to be on a walk and then suddenly come across a rock (not that hard to do really) then one would assume, because of its simplicity, that it weren't designed and we would dismiss it. However, if one was to find a pocket watch on our walk we would logically and quite rightly assume that it was designed because of the intricate structure (i.e. how one cog affects another, how the smallest piece is significant etc) that there was a watchmaker of some sorts. Paley argued that this is similar to the universe in that we see and observe the apparent design (again, see below article) in the universe so therefore we can logically and quite rightly assume that there is an infinite designer.   

Now that I am finished with these arguments, the next area by which we can provide a big case for the existence of God is through science- yes, you did hear right, through science. The common myth is that science disproves God, something that is completely untrue. In fear of repeating myself, I refer you to that article which is situated just below this one. These two articles are very much interlinked but I considered them to be worthy of separate answers.

At this I sign off. I hope what I have written here has got you thinking, either negatively or just with curiosity (), and if the latter is true then I ask you to read on. The battle-cry of Post-Modern Theology is that 'God [at least as we know of the entity] is dead'.  I think it may have spoken too early. As Isaiah 40:6-8 says,

"All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 
but the word of the Lord stands forever."

Revised- 3rd January, 2006.

This follows from what I wrote in my previous article (situated above), and you could say this is 'part 2'. Before, I explained how it is unreasonable for us to expect physical evidence of God as we understand Him (i.e. not Jesus, but a heavenly entity) because He is by definition a spiritual being. I also stated how this lack of scientific evidence (which after all is a study of physical things) does not mean God doesn't exist, and that we can identify things we believe and experience (similar to how religious believers 'experience' God) but can't be sensed in our everyday lives, such as emotion or air. Moving on from this I stated how religious experience and biblical prophesy puts forward a good case for God, and I finished with a statement that some of you may have either dismissed or become intrigued by. This is that science does in fact present a good case for God- it far from falsifies Him. This comes as no surprise to those who study the Bible, as it is said that God reveals Himself in His creation, and because science studies the physical universe it should come up with something in His favour. For example, some will tell you that the state of God being in three manifestations but one God nonetheless (or in other words the Trinity, see below article) is reflected in the way in which time is divided into the past, present and future, but there is still one time, or in the way that water can be gas, liquid or a solid but it's still H20. But all this will mean nothing to you if I don't start providing the facts. So, like my previous article I will divide them into numbered steps for easy reading!

1. Perhaps the biggest scientific argument is that of design, because we can actually see this just by observing the world. The universe just pangs of a designer, from the complex make up of DNA, to the rate of expansion after the Big Bang. The latter is known as the 'Strong Anthropic Principle' (put forward by Richard Swinburne), and this states that if the rate of expansion was even MARGINALLY slower then the universe would have 'crunched' into itself, and if it was any faster then it would have just expired. Let me illustrate the chances of such a 'fine tuning' actually occurring by chance- the mathematical fact is that it is more likely for an archer to hit a 10cm target from over 10 billion light years away than for the universe to have come about by chance. Let's also consider other factors, such as the ratio of protons to electrons (something for all the physics students out there!). According to the 'God and Science' website (see references), the ratio must be "exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in [paraphrased] 10 to the power of 37 [end paraphrase]...otherwise electromagnetic forces would have superseded gravitational forces and no galaxies would have ever formed". Dr.Hugh Ross illustrates this with an analogy- stack coins from North America all the way to the moon. Then do it on a billion other continents. Next paint one dime red, and shuffle it in with the billions of piles of dimes and ask a friend to pick it out, BLINDFOLDED. The odds that he will pick the red dime are 10 to the power of 37, the same as the ratio of electrons to protons coming about by chance. Even the position of our planet suggests a designer, as the distance between us and a planetary star has to be EXACTLY right for us to be in the 'life zone', a VERY small area that enables water to exist in its three forms; liquid, gas and solid. Can you see now what I mean by an apparent designer? William Paley, in 1804 ('Natural Theology'), constructed an analogy which said that if we stumbled across a rock then we would assume it has always been there, but if we stumbled on a pocket watch and noted how its innards are complex, how they affect one another in intricate ways, we would HAVE to assume it was designed. It's the same thing with the universe, and these are not the only arguments for the design in the universe- take a look at the God and Science website (for the link see the references section).  
2. But design is not the only scientific argument for God. What if I told you that there have been professional and scientific experiments on prayer that have shown it has worked? Well, it's true. I'll give you an example, and if you want to see more check out the link in the references section of this site. Firstly, there were cardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Centre who were prayed for (without knowing) by born again Christian who led an 'active' christian life. Also, none of the hospital staff knew who were being prayed for, as there was also a 'placebo' group who were given no prayer. The results showed that BEFORE being prayed for, no differences were apparent between the groups, but AFTER those who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently incubated and ventilated". Interesting, no? Like I said, if you want to see more of these studies check out the references section and click on the link, it's on reference number 11.

So, as you can see, religious belief and science aren't so distant after all- infact they CAN be reconciled and they CAN work together. Robert Jastrow illustrated the struggle that SOME (nowhere near all) scientists have to face- "He [the scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock; he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Are you one of these 'scientists'?

This is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that a Christian can answer, but that does not mean it is impossible. Obviously, no answer will be perfect and sometimes those answers won't settle some people's qualms, but as Matt Slick says on www.carm.org (check the references) "our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions". And solutions we shall offer, and there are quite a few, none of which individually provide the ultimate answer but collectively they help substantially answer this problem. I'll lay them out one by one-

1. God may use evil and suffering to show us, rather clearly, what is bad and what is good. In the Book of Genesis God told Adam what is wrong and yet Adam still went against His wishes. Ok, he was tricked, but tricking others is exactly what evil does- it makes it seem that what is wrong is right and sometimes visa versa. By establishing an obvious definition between right and wrong mankind has enough experience of both, in his/her lifetime, to knowledgably choose which path to take- God's or our own. So therefore we could say that one reason why evil exists is to give us enough knowledge to decide whether or not to follow God. Without that what would we base our decisions on?
2. We have to differentiate between moral and natural evil here. Natural evil is basically suffering, the kind of thing caused by natural diseases and natural disasters. Moral evil is a result of free will; it tends to be that which is inflicted by man unto man. For example, however evil World War 2 is it is the result of mankind and his free will, the same goes for nuclear weapons, guns etc. So, the problem is with free will. The reality is, however, that God knows the necessity for free will. Think about it- would you want to live in a world where you were FORCED to do good, FORCED to love God, FORCED to do His will? Of course not, and God doesn't want it neither. Would you want your children to be forced to do all those things? I doubt it. Therefore, free will is necessary otherwise we'd all effectively be robots with a mind only to do good. The 'doing good' bit is attractive, but God would rather have His love be proper and true rather than a falsehood.
3. Sometimes suffering is actually necessary and may be inflicted upon some by God in order to achieve a higher purpose and a greater good. Before you start, this does not mean God is evil. Evil by its very definition is an absence of good. If there is a greater good and a higher purpose for an act of suffering, inflicted by a morally perfect and a benevolent God, then that surely means that the act is not without good. Therefore, it isn't evil. Take for example the story in Genesis concerning Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Out of that apparent 'evil' there came a greater good- Joseph later saved Egypt and his brothers from a drought by making provisions. Joseph then said in Genesis 50:15-21, "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good".

There may be other reasons, and yet we may never get the ultimate answer. It's a mystery as to why evil and suffering exists in the light of God, but as you can see there are good and sensible solutions. Do these offer the truth? Maybe not on their own. Perhaps if we add up everything then we will have a collective answer to this problem. However, until that day, I don't think it is wise for us to merely dismiss God because we don't 'like' what we see in the world. Not everything is black and white. What may seem wrong to us may have a better purpose.

This is interesting, and I do not blame the person who makes this claim in the slightest for what he or she has said. The word 'Trinity' is clearly misleading, and if we were talking about anything else other than God then it would be quite correct to assume that our discussion is concerned with three, separate persons. However, this is not the case with the HOLY Trinity, or in other words the Christian doctrine concerning the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The word 'trinity' is not used in the bible in this context, rather this doctrine was developed as a result of looking at biblical teachings and coming to a conclusion about what it tells us.

 First we have to try and grasp the ideas behind it, but this is no easy job as it can be incredibly confusing to the non-Christian and the Christian alike. The general thought behind this doctrine is that the Father is one, the Son is one, the Holy Spirit is one, but they all come from and are part of the same being- God. For example, when Jesus was with us here on earth He was part of the Father, the Father was part of Him and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. This is echoed when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" in John 10:30.

Relating to the title, no, Christians do not believe in three gods. We believe in ONE God, just as Jesus taught, but that God can be identified in three 'persons' (though this term is slightly misleading in itself, for I do not mean three entities, rather 'manifestations'). Each of these is distinct to each other and they are almost on a 'table', with the Heavenly Father being at the top, the Son being second and the Holy Spirit being last. This is in no way a reflection of their Holiness for each of the three 'manifestations' is equally divine, however it merely reflects their abilities. The Heavenly Father can do anything, the Son is limited because of Him having a body of flesh, and the Holy Spirit is limited further because it is 'just' a spirit (though the English language fails us again because even though It is 'just' a spirit It is incredibly important, life-changing etc).

So, as we can see the Trinity does not mean three, separate entities that are all divine, because that would not be monotheism and it would go against what Jesus taught (Mark 12:29). However, it is also clear that God reveals Himself in three 'manifestations', each of which are equally divine and they make up one God. Are you confused? I don't blame you if you are; to be honest I found it difficult to write this. However, it may be as 'Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry' says- "the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth.  The Bible is the self-revelation of an infinite God.  Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand". If you still have problems, feel free to e-mail me or post a question in the guestbook (remember to include your e-mail).

Before I begin to answer this, I would like to note that I have already established that Jesus almost definitely existed in the ‘Jesus is just a myth’ article on the ‘Objections with Jesus’ page found on this site, and so therefore you simply cannot compare Santa with Christ. Now that I have made this clear, I will now focus on the question.

The most obvious assumption present here is that Santa and God are the same in that they both are myths, or children’s stories that haven’t any basis in fact. It is worth pointing out here the nature of the two beings we’re talking about is important- God is spiritual, but Santa is physical. This is particularly significant because as a physical being Father Christmas is subject to worldly factors, such as science and its implications, cultural circumstances, man-made inventions etc. As such, Santa comes into a little bit of trouble when you talk about his presence in the world-

1.        Even though the western world has amazing satellite and radar technology, it has not yet picked up his sleigh, nor has it discovered Santa’s grotto.

2.        If Santa has obviously flown over major western capitals, then why haven’t numerous fighter jets been scrambled to take him down? The radar wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a possible threat and a sleigh, after all. So what’s with the lack of conflict in the skies?

3.        It is impossible for a physical being to travel at the speed necessary to deliver every single present to every single child in the world.

4.        It is impossible for a physical being in the shape of a human to get down a modern chimney.

5.        In spite of the vast number of CCTV cameras in operation within western society, not one has recorded the image of a reindeer never mind the man himself.

6.        There is NO evidence of reindeer tracks on the roofs of billions of homes.

7.     And probably the most damning point of all is that billions of parents worldwide will provide evidence and testimony that it is THEY that buy, wrap and give the presents after placing them under the tree, not Santa Claus.

Looking at this it may seem that I am trying to write a 5 year old’s worst nightmare of an article, which is obviously not what I am trying to do. The point here is merely to illustrate that, as a physical being there is absolutely no evidence of Santa’s existence, but tons of evidence of his inexistence. However, God is simply not like this because He is spiritual by nature. By His very definition He cannot be proven via physical means, and His inexistence cannot be proven full stop. However, the arguments for Him actually existing put forward a very good case but at the same time the arguments to the contrary just fail miserably. This is not at all the case with Santa, and therefore what seemed like an initially sound claim just turns out to be full of holes.

The answer to this is that you don't HAVE to worship anyone, that is the beauty of God's creation- we are given the free will not to worship Him. However He does want to be worshipped, but why? Well, think about it. Whether you believe in God or not, you have to accept that the common concept of Him is that He created the Heavens and the Earth, and everything in it. He gives us happiness, and peace, and is Something greater than we could ever comprehend. He is not another person, He is another being altogether, so when you worship God it's nothing at all like worshipping a human. You're basically giving thanks to the One who maintains us and the universe around us, we only live because we still have a purpose and the universe only exists because He wants it to. That kind of being SHOULD be worshipped, that kind of being SHOULD be thanked. And why not? Do you know anyone else who has done the things God has done?

If you're the kind of person who would make this comment, then I don't blame you. You don't have to worship God, but I promise you that once you look at why God exists and therefore what He has done for us you will WANT to worship Him. But of course, half of the problem here is the word, 'worship'. To worship someone you don't have to be a blind sheep, you could be just someone who is giving thanks to their maker in the only way they can. After all, you can't give Him money, you can't give Him your body (what exactly would He do with it?)- you can only give Him your heart and sincere thanks. That is what worship is, and that's why He should be worshipped.

I remember sitting at my desk, a 14 year old lad, in my R.E. Lesson. We were being taught about what Christians believe about Jesus - so we go through the motions, Jesus as Saviour, Jesus as Lord, Jesus as the Son of God. Then we get onto the Incarnation. And, being 14 year olds, the class responds with silent confusion! What the deuce does that mean, we think to ourselves? Well once told what it meant it became clear that it wasn't exactly a clear cut notion, in itself - Jesus was, so Christian belief goes, both fully God, and fully man. 100% Divine, and 100% human. At once. He was, as "God the Son", a member of the Christian Trinity, that is, the Christian God is identified as one and alone, there are no other Gods, but within God there exists three 'persons', 'bodies', 'identities', 'egos', 'heads' in the monarchical sense if you will, and they exist independantly yet simultaneously as one and the same.

Sound confusing? Well, you'd be forgiven for thinking so. Incidentally, the term 'Incarnation', at this point, seemed not so daunting- in fact, my teacher gave me a great way to remember it. Chilli Con Carne - Incarnation - the former is chilli with flesh, with meat, and the latter means 'in flesh', or 'enfleshment'. Not only does this method leave you understanding a rather clever sounding word, it also makes you really hungry...

As I grew in my faith, and especially as I began to study theology academically, I reflected more and more on what the Incarnation means, not just literally, but theologically - what does it, as a doctrine, actually mean? Is it biblical? What ramifications does it have if God Himself involved Himself intimately and profoundly in society and culture? So, I studied. And I studied. And I read. And I ate Chilli Con Carne. And I studied a bit more.

The thing I found, and still find, fascinating about this doctrine is the fact that it is so unbelievably mindblowing, so unbelievably profound, so applicably relevant to almost every form of Christian living and theory, but yet is so woefully misunderstood, under-defended and as a result, so often attacked by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and Muslims alike. Most Christians have no idea what the Incarnation is, truly and deeply. One of my lecturers once quipped that as doctrines, the Incarnation and the Trinity are two of the most sensitive beliefs to handle, for just one misplaced or inaccurate phrase or term will guide you straight into 'heresy'.

For example, if you're a Christian and reading this, what is the Trinity? Do we say that the Father, Son and Spirit are 'manifestations' or 'forms' or 'modes' of God? No, because that's a heresy - it's called 'Sabellianism', or 'Modalism', and is popularly seen in the movement known as 'Oneness Pentacostalism'. Do we say that Jesus was perfect but was created by the Father and then was Divine? No because that's Arianism, another heresy, arguably manifested in a contemporary religious movement known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do we say that Jesus' Divine side outweighed or obliterated His human side? No, because that's a form of 'monophysitism' known as 'Eutychianism', and it too is a heresy.

Don't worry by the way about these terms, by the way. Searching Wikipedia might be a good idea if you're curious, but my point here is to illustrate that as Christians we are woefully doing these central and fundamental beliefs an injustice, and as a result we suffer, observers suffer and the Church suffers. James White writes,

The reality is, when we approach the Incarnation from even the vaguest of faith perspectives it doesn't just shout at you, it screams at you, then punches you, then kicks you in the testicles or equivalent (hello, girls), spits at you, calls your mum something unheard of and then maybe, just maybe, let's you go. But very often it doesn't. It just prefers to kill you.

So it is absolutely imperative, therefore, that we know what the Trinity and the Incarnation are, and how to defend them, and why we're defending them- we must know, in other words, the full significance of our belief in Christ as God the Son. Because in my experience at least, the centre of controversy is Jesus as Divine - most if not all acknowledge the Holiness, the Divinity, if you will of the Holy Spirit (His 'personhood' is a source of controversy, but we'll have to leave that for now), and certainly no one is doubting the Divinity of the Father. So let's focus on the Incarnation as an easy source of reference.

Defining the Incarnation

Aside from the chilli con carne definition offered above, how do we articulate the meaning of the Incarnation? Such was certainly the subject of the early Church's endeavours. Indeed, in Christ they had seen someone who made them 'ransack their theological vocabularies' as scholar James Dunn says ("Christology in the Making"), questioning and re-questioning their 'theological boxes' they sought to express who and exactly what Jesus was. In doing so they said many words, and thought many thoughts, and trying to collect them all is no small task. It all came to a head at the Councils, the one you may be most aware of being the Council of Nicea held in 325 AD. The Church had been dealing with the heresy I named above, Arianism, and wanted to put into creed and formula, thus structuring and 'canonising' (aka 'making standard'), exactly what the Church had believed and had expressed about Jesus. So at that council the Church voted with a huge majority in favour (and I mean, huge - out of 280-320 bishops present, only 2 or 3 objected!) for the belief in Jesus as the Church knows it today. Arianism 'ticked over', however, and in a need to re-establish and re-articulate this traditional belief and creed they held another council in Constantinople in 381 AD. Upon tinkering and refining the Creed of 56 years previous, they came out with this:

"We believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us and our salvation He came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human"

Sound confusing? I don't blame you. Combining my knowledge of this and other theologies and creeds concerning the Incarnation, I came up with a definition of my own that may well help you, a simple definition of a great mystery: "The Incarnation is the belief that Jesus Christ is both Divine and Human, at once - fully man and fully God - neither cancelling out or nullifying the other".

And if that ain't clear enough, well I guess there's always the Chilli Con Carne definition to keep you going!

2) Some Basic, Theological Points

The Incarnation may be frequently debated and discussed, and indeed I have engaged in many debates with Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims and so forth, in which I have seen how important knowing the Incarnation as it actually is, as opposed to how one perceives it to be. So with that in mind, let me lay out some crucial points to bare in mind:

• Jesus, as the Son, is 'Ontologically Equal' to the Father - and if you're not fluent in academic klingon, that means that Jesus' substance, the 'stuff' that He's made of, is identical to the 'stuff' of the Father.
• That does not, however, prevent Him from being 'Functionally Equal', indeed Jesus is 'Functionally Subordinate' to the Father - again, I translate from the original klingon: Jesus in His authority, in His ability, and in His position, is willingly 'subordinate' or 'lesser than' the Father. The Father, if you will, is Jesus' "boss". However, keep in mind that whilst Jesus in function, in ability, is subordinate, that does not make Him ontologically subordinate, or lesser in Divinity or 'godness'.
• The ancients believed in the notion of a 'hypostasis', a sort of 'extension' of a deity or God that could extend itself to the temporal, the earth, to act as an 'intermediary' between God and man, and retain the identity and purpose of the one who sent it. This is the category in which the New Testament places Jesus' nature and purpose, Jesus acts as a 'broker' for God as 'patron', the middle man, the one who was sent from God and yet retains His authority and identity.
• It is also important to note the nature of New Testament 'Christology' (i.e. what it says of Christ) - we're going to address why Jesus didn't say explicitly, "I am GOD- Worship me!", later, but for now just be aware that the NT was trying to express the full significance of Christ. As a result, they said many things, some cryptic, some obvious within their 1st Century Judaic context, and others were implicitly significant. Either way, the NT iss an attempt to explain and express this significance, yet the premises leading towards Jesus as the Incarnated Word of God are there, and obvious, and unescapable. Let us, then, identify them.

3) Defending the Incarnation as Biblical through these Premises

[1] - White, J. (1998). "The Forgotten Trinity", Bethany House USA, p. 14.