2
2014taylorj
Guest
If there is only one God, and Jesus is God why is it not appropriate to describe God as our saviour, but instead to say that Jesus is the only saviour?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Fauken
Guest
Both are appropriate. Jesus is God. God is one God in three persons.If there is only one God, and Jesus is God why is it not appropriate to describe God as our saviour, but instead to say that Jesus is the only saviour?
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s not inappropriate to describe God as our savior.If there is only one God, and Jesus is God why is it not appropriate to describe God as our savior… ?
2
2014taylorj
Guest
So if the father is fully God, and Jesus is fully God and the holy spirit is fully God. But God is saviour, why couldn’t we then say that the father is saviour, or that the holy spirit is saviour etc. According to the catechism jesus is the “only saviour”.
W
Wesrock
Guest
What part of the CCC are you looking at?So if the father is fully God, and Jesus is fully God and the holy spirit is fully God. But God is saviour, why couldn’t we then say that the father is saviour, or that the holy spirit is saviour etc. According to the catechism jesus is the “only saviour”.
2
2014taylorj
Guest
F
Fauken
Guest
That’s not the Catechism, for starters.
2
2014taylorj
Guest
452 The name Jesus means “God saves”. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” ( Mt 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” ( Acts 4:12).
F
Fauken
Guest
452 The name Jesus means “God saves”. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” ( Mt 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” ( Acts 4:12).
God became man. The Father sent the Son to save us, and the Son’s name is Jesus. It is through Christ’s death that saved us, not the death of the Father nor the Holy Spirit, hence why it says that. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons of one God, but the persons are not each other: the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc." 457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:70"
P
PetraG
Guest
Because the Father sent the Son to be Incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. It was the Second Person of the Trinity who became a man.So if the father is fully God, and Jesus is fully God and the holy spirit is fully God. But God is saviour, why couldn’t we then say that the father is saviour, or that the holy spirit is saviour etc. According to the catechism jesus is the “only saviour”.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I’ve asked this several times before but I will ask again. When you say it is “through Christ’s death that saved us, not the death of the Father nor the Holy Spirit,” do you (and the Church) mean that G-d the Son actually died, or do you mean that G-d Incarnate (Jesus the Man only) died, or both since there is a hypostatic union (Christ is fully G-d and fully Man)? If both, how could G-d have actually died either physically or spiritually? What does it mean to say that G-d the Son died and was resurrected: how is it possible?
Further, as I understand the Trinity, G-d the Father, G-d the Son, and G-d the Holy Spirit are distinct with different roles yet not separate and the same One G-d. Is the hypostatic union of Jesus also distinct but not separate or is the union neither distinct nor separate?
Further, as I understand the Trinity, G-d the Father, G-d the Son, and G-d the Holy Spirit are distinct with different roles yet not separate and the same One G-d. Is the hypostatic union of Jesus also distinct but not separate or is the union neither distinct nor separate?
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Jesus the man died. God in His divinity cannot die.When you say it is “through Christ’s death that saved us, not the death of the Father nor the Holy Spirit,” do you (and the Church) mean that G-d the Son actually died, or do you mean that G-d Incarnate (Jesus the Man only) died, or both since there is a hypostatic union (Christ is fully G-d and fully Man)?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
So in that case the hypostatic union of Jesus fully G-d and Jesus fully Man is distinct or perhaps separate in death although not in life?
Last edited:
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Pretty much what I was going to say
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Although G-d is One, which Person’s will do you mean: G-d the Father’s will or G-d the Son’s will? And are you (and the Church) saying that G-d the Son actually died, not only the human Jesus?
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
It’s my understanding that the human and divine natures of Jesus are distinct. Those natures don’t meld together into some kind of third nature, which was condemned as a heresy.So in that case the hypostatic union of Jesus fully G-d and Jesus fully Man is distinct or perhaps separate in death although not in life?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
OK, the distinctness of the three Persons of G-d also applies to the distinctness of the natures of G-d the Son, and that distinctness of Christ continues when Jesus the Man but not Jesus, G-d the Son, died? And, at the same time, the will of Jesus the Man was in complete accord with the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, and the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, is in complete accord with the will of G-d the Father? Therefore, the distinctness is based on role rather than will?
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
If I understand you right, yes.OK, the distinctness of the three Persons of G-d also applies to the distinctness of the natures of G-d the Son, and that distinctness of Christ continues when Jesus the Man but not Jesus, G-d the Son, died?
Correct. The persons of the Trinity all share one divine will.And, at the same, the will of Jesus the Man was in complete accord with the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, and the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, is in complete accord with the will of G-d the Father? Therefore, the distinctness is based on role rather than will?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
One more question before I let you off the hook. Given that the simplicity of G-d is a dogma according to the Church, why all these heresies? Don’t they reveal that the Trinitarian G-d as well as the hypostatic union of the Second Person, is NOT a simple thing to understand?
F
Fauken
Guest
The simplicity of God doesn’t refer to the Trinity being an easy to understand thought: it’s definitely not. I’m not sure how to phrase this, to be honest. I’d reference an article to you, but I don’t want to link you something that I myself can’t explain nor understand. I’d suggest asking one of the posters better acquainted with philosophy to do it.One more question before I let you off the hook. Given that the simplicity of G-d is a dogma according to the Church, why all these heresies? Don’t they reveal that the Trinitarian G-d as well as the hypostatic union of the Second Person, is NOT a simple thing to understand?
@Wesrock, can you help?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.