3

enter image description here

The Doctrine of the Trinity is affirmed by the Catholic Church and more in general by the large majority of Christian denominations, Orthodox, "mainline" Protestant etc., with some relevant exceptions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical Unitarians, Christadelphians, etc.)

How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, related to the Trinity? Is he the same as God-the-Son? Does God-the-Son somehow "incorporate" the humanity of Jesus?

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    You don't have to account for your choice, but you should, because it seems significant, and how can anyone give a helpful answer to your question if they don't understand your motivation for asking it and your reasons for phrasing it as you did? I removed your comment because it wasn't relevant or necessary. If you ever think a question has been wrongly closed, please make a discussion on Christianity Meta instead of vaguely talking about it on other questions.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    May 9, 2021 at 12:37
  • 1
    (1). How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, related to the Trinity ? - In much the same manner in which the non-resurrected Jesus, not yet physically sitting on the right hand of the Father, is also related to the Trinity. (2). Does God-the-Son somehow "incorporate" the humanity of Jesus? - See Incarnation.
    – user46876
    May 9, 2021 at 13:51
  • 2
    @MigueldeServet You misunderstand both the scripture and what was defined at the Council of Nicea. The 'life the eternal which was with the Father was manifested' says John. He who is come 'quickening Spirit' is 'come of woman', says Paul. Deity, in the Person of the Son of God, is manifested in humanity. But that is not 'God-man' as you suppose. The Person is eternal God, the manifestation is humanity.
    – Nigel J
    May 9, 2021 at 16:40
  • 1
    @MigueldeServet: (1). Yes. And ? (2). Why wouldn't He be ?
    – user46876
    May 9, 2021 at 19:39
  • 2
    @MigueldeServet: Never leave a space after the @ sign. It's not a question of (dis)liking your post; it's just that neither I, nor the rest of the community, apparently, are able to grasp or comprehend the reasoning or meaning behind it. Could you explain why you'd think that there should be a difference as to personhood between the risen and non-risen Christ, and/or why you'd think His human nature disappeared after the resurrection or ascension; or whatever it is that you are trying to relay here; I'm not even sure I'm able to understand the question, let alone answer it.
    – user46876
    May 9, 2021 at 23:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

According to Nicene Christianity, the answer is simple: Jesus is the same being and person from the moment of his incarnate conception through to his life on earth, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. That is, the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God, took on a complete human nature, which was united to the divine nature in his person, or hypostasis, hence the hypostatic union. The humanity of Christ did not exist prior to the incarnation, so it is confusing at best if not misleading to say that the Son of God "incorporated the humanity of Jesus", as a normal English reading of that phrase would infer that the humanity of Jesus existed prior to being united to the divine nature. The person of the Son of God died in his human nature, and then was raised back to life in his human nature, which he continues to possess after the ascension.

Improve this answer
3
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    May 10, 2021 at 13:02
  • @curioudannii For the record, in the linked chat I have proved that your Answer leads to a contradiction. You have never objected to my demonstration ...
    – Miguel de Servet
    Jun 14, 2021 at 21:04
  • @MigueldeServet It's only a contradiction when you misunderstand what Trinitarians teach. We never said immutability concerned the incarnation. You never defined immutability in such a way that it did and asked whether I agreed with your definition or not. If everyone agreed with how you define things of course it would be a contradiction. That should make you realise that other people have different definitions. You can't be the first person in history to every point out that the incarnation is a change. Do you think all Trinitarians are so dumb as to have never thought about it?
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Jun 14, 2021 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .