Son Personage.

Ok I understand Jesus is the son person. So does that mean the personage of the Son is called “Jesus”? Is Jesus an incarnation of the Son? I understand the trinity fundamentally and it’s concept is very much older than “Christianity”. The Son “can” have incarnations correct? Such as Jesus. Is the son called “Jesus” ? I would say not necessarily so. Trinity is Trinity.

Now one can bail out here and say I don’t know. Or well I’m right so then everyone else is wrong and this doesn’t help obtain truth. And there is one truth. Keeping it simple. Is Jesus an incarnation of the son. Is the son called “Jesus”? Or is this not clear in tradition?


Jesus is not an incarnation of the Son, he is the Son incarnated in the flesh. Jesus is truly God and truly man. This is called the hypostatic union.

The Trinity is not at all like incarnations of this or that power. He is one God in three person. The only incarnation of God is that of Jesus Christ as described above.

I don’t understand the first part of Della’s remark since the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states, “Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith.” (463)

The Catechism describes it as “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God…” (464) So, I’m pretty sure that means there has been and will ever be only the one Incarnation of the Son of God which began about 2000 years ago and will continue until the end of the world and beyond. Thus, Jesus is not simply “an” incarnation of the Son but for all time the one and only Incarnation of the Son.

The designations "the Son, the Son of God, the Word, the Word of God, Jesus, Jesus Christ all refer to one and the same divine person, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Ok yeah I know somewhat about the Hypostatic Union. But it is sometimes not clear to me. Things about it. But I am a lay person.

Your saying “Son of God”. Wouldn’t it be better to say God the Son maybe? I am getting pretty familiar with the trinity. Maybe the Father’s Son would that be inaccurate? I have been reading apologetics too concerning what is meant when we say “Mary mother of God”.

The Son is called the Son because he is eternally begotten by the Father; the Father is called the Father because he eternally begets the Son. The use of the word Son implies another who is his Father; the use of the word Father implies another who is his Son. A man is not called a father unless he has or had a son or daughter.

The Son, the Son of God, God’s Son, the Son of the Father, the Father’s Son, and God the Son are all good and accurate designations peculiar to the Second Person of the Trinity.

Picking up on the reincarnation or incarnation of aspects of gods the OP linked, I tried to make the distinction that Jesus isn’t one of those, but truly the Incarnation of the Son of God not an incarnation of some god or gods, as in Hindu beliefs. Sorry for the confusion. :slight_smile:

What the Trimurti is saying is basically I think like our trinity. ALL incarnations of God have a ‘trinity’. Creation, sustenance, and dissolution. To some degree or another depending on the work of the individual. So that would be in us all I would think. Exactly how that lines up with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit IDK. You just looked too literally :slight_smile: That’s easy to do. Concerning the Son personage is my question. Jesus can of course be called ‘Son’ but can the ‘Son’ be called ‘Jesus’. Just trying to get the distinction clear. I don’t know if Aquinas would get into this or not.

In the first place, the Trinity was not revealed until Jesus Christ, so the doctrine was not known explicitly before Jesus Christ.

Secondly, Jesus Christ is God the Son. We normally use the name Jesus to refer the Person insofar as He became man, and the word Son when referring to the interior life of God, but the distinction is purely nominal. Thus, one can say God the Son walked the earth, Jesus is begotten of the Father from eternity, etc.

Benedicat Deus,

The Son may be referred to as Jesus since the incarnation. That is the name of the one person, who is both fully the Son and man. It does not refer only to his human nature, but to him in his entirety. There is also only one Incarnation, and that is Jesus.

May I ask what you mean by, “All incarnations of God have a trinity”?

A man. A fish. An idea. Since we are in the image of God it’s the same with us. An idea has a creation, sustenance and dissolution. Very simple.

Not quite. He is both God and man, but not both the Son and man. Even as man, He is God the Son. Jesus is the name of the Person, who is God the Son - they really are identical. The name Jesus tends to be used to refer to God the Son incarnate, but the Person is unchanged by the Incarnation. Thus one can use God the Son and Jesus interchangeably.

Benedicat Deus,

Others have answered your question about Jesus and the Son being the same, so I will address your trinity idea. No, the Trinity does not have creation, sustenance, dissolution because he is eternal not temporal. He is the source of creation, not a creation. He does not sustain himself, he simply is who he is, as he revealed his existence to Moses when he said, “I am,” and as Jesus, on more than one occasion described himself, as well. The Son’s incarnation in no way changed his essence. The Son is God eternal. And with God there is no dissolution. He is life eternal. Dissolution is a temporal condition not an eternal one. So no, the Trinity cannot be compared to the three things you cited.

Exactly who is he? God as trinity has the function upon creation of Creation, sustenance and dissolution. These three things upon the created not upon himself. If that’s what you think I am saying. :confused:

A thing is created, sustained, and dissolved by God.

Whom do you mean?

God as trinity has the function upon creation of Creation, sustenance and dissolution. These three things upon the created not upon himself. If that’s what you think I am saying. :confused:

A thing is created, sustained, and dissolved by God.

But that’s not the comparison you were making–that the Trinity does these things, but rather that the Trinity is those things as shown in your claim that the idea of trinity predates Christ. I’m sorry, but your arguments seem confused, and confusing. Your point, if you have one, eludes me. :shrug:

Personage I am meaning here is Aquinas’s version. Peter the Apostle his personage would be called “Peter”. Ok Jesus’ personage si called “Son” an in part of the trinity.

Ok I will just drop the link in the first post. What is being said there and here about “trinity” are probably both right in there own relative statements. I don’t want to mix and have a mess. I am speaking of Hypostasis and personage as Aquinas. I didn’t mean to confuse so much.

Jesus is not just called “Son”, He is the Son, even as man. Who is Jesus Christ? He’s God the Son.

Also, there are not “parts” of the Trinity, as though God were composed of Three Persons. Each Person of the Trinity is God, whole and entire. They are numerically one (in the same way that one baseball is numerically one). God is absolutely simple. In otherwords, God is not composed of Three Persons, but is Three Persons.

Benedicat Deus,

I have a hard time exampling to my Mom a protestant just what you said. The scriptures say “There are three who bear witness in heaven”. That is the doctrine of the trinity. Isn’t it three “persons” and one nature?

There was never a time when Christ was NOT the “Son of God”
There was never a time when the Son of God did not have a father
The Son of God did not require a mother to be the Son of God.
Mary became a mother (there was a time when she was not a mother)
Christ never became a son (Christ was never “not a son”)
From all eternity past, Christ was always the Son of God.

This doctrine is called the Eternal Sonship of Christ

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit