One divine person in Jesus

[Tigran1245]

Is this the reason why Nestorius refused to call the Blessed Virgin "Theotokos" when asked by Cyril of Alexandria?

Yes, exactly this one. Nestorius wrote to Cyril:

In the Holy Scripture, wherever it speaks of the divine dispensation, it conveys to us the birth and suffering of human nature in Christ, and not divine. And therefore the most correct name for the Holy Virgin should not be the Theotokos, but the Christotokos.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Yes, exactly this one. Nestorius wrote to Cyril:

In the Holy Scripture, wherever it speaks of the divine dispensation, it conveys to us the birth and suffering of human nature in Christ, and not divine. And therefore the most correct name for the Holy Virgin should not be the Theotokos, but the Christotokos.

So the Blessed Theotokos bore the Human Hypostasis? According to you, she was called "Theo tokos" (God-bearer) only because of the interchange of names, because we just attribute to the Hypostasis of the flesh what belongs to the Hypostasis of the Word?

 

[Tigran1245]

So the Blessed Theotokos bore the Human Hypostasis? According to you, she was called "Theo tokos" (God-bearer) only because of the interchange of names, because we just attribute to the Hypostasis of the flesh what belongs to the Hypostasis of the Word?

Saint Cyril in his "Word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God" writes:

Sometimes, however, Divine Scripture designates the properties of human nature by the name of God.

But the main reason, of course, is that Christ is not a new man and not a union of two Persons, but one eternal divine Person of God the Word. That is why St. Mary is called the Mother of God.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

But the main reason, of course, is that Christ is not a new man and not a union of two Persons, but one eternal divine Person of God the Word. That is why St. Mary is called the Mother of God.

Let me understand this well:

Tell me the Greek term for "Person" in the following clause: "one eternal divine Person of God the Word".

 

[Tigran1245]

Let me understand this well:

Tell me the Greek term for "Person" in the following clause: "one eternal divine Person of God the Word".

πρόσωπον

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

πρόσωπον

Okay, so I understand the following:
You believe that God is Three Prosopa, each with His own Hypostasis, and that the Prosopon of the Son united two Hypostases in His one Prosopon. So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin.

Did I get you right?

 

[Tigran1245]

Okay, so I understand the following:
You believe that God is Three Prosopa, each with His own Hypostasis, and that the Prosopon of the Son united two Hypostasis in His one Prosopon. So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin.

Did I get you right?

The Person of Christ is Divine-human after the union, but this is not a united Person, but the same Person that was before the incarnation. The same Son.

So, single Person, united hypostases and nature. Coptic Mitropolitan Bishoy wrote about Christology of Severus on Antioch:

Prosopon of the hypostasis of God the Word is shared by both the divine and the human hypostases of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The natures and the hypostases, of which he has been composed are perceived irreducibly and unchangeably in the union.


The one hypostasis of Jesus Christ is not simply the hypostasis of God the Son, but it is the hypostasis of God the Son in his incarnate state.

(https://metropolitan-bishoy.org/files/Christology/siteseverus.doc)

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The Person of Christ is Divine-human after the union, but this is not a united Person, but the same Person that was before the incarnation. The same Son.

So, single Person, united hypostases and nature.

We said we will leave aside the discussions about the Hypostasis as discussed in the context of the Chalcedonian controversy, because it will not be helpful given the fact that there were different definitions and usages for it. So let's concentrate on your issue with Nestorianism and with our Christology.

So in the quote above you say:

"The Person of Christ is Divine-human after the union":
Please, everytime you use a term, clarify which Greek term you are translating. Now, please, tell me which Greek word is "Person" in this quotation.

I am guessing that it is the Greek Prosopon, so I will reply accordingly. But if my assumption is wrong, then correct me, please.

So till now I learned from you that what you believe is this:
God is Trinity = God is Three Prosopa. (You didn't clarify yet if He is also Three Hypostases).
After the union (you still didn't clarify the union of whom or what with whom or what), one Prosopon in the Trinity is not only Divine anymore, but also Human by union, so this Prosopon is Divine-Human. So this Prospon changed its Nature: This Nature is not just Divine anymore, but It became a composite Nature. The Prosopon of the Son changed.

You still didn't tell me if each Prosopon of the Trinity has His own Hypostasis or not.

You didn't clearly address my following statement about your belief:
"So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin."

And I understood also that the Virgin didn't bear the the Divine Nature or Hypostasis. Did I get this right?

 

[Tigran1245]

So till now I learned from you that what you believe is this:
God is Trinity = God is Three Prosopa. (You didn't clarify yet if He is also Three Hypostases).

God is three hypostases, each having a Person.

After the union (you still didn't clarify the union of whom or what with whom or what), one Prosopon in the Trinity is not only Divine anymore, but also Human by union, so this Prosopon is Divine-Human. So this Prospon changed its Nature: This Nature is not just Divine anymore, but It became a composite Nature. The Prosopon of the Son changed.
"So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin."

The person was Divine, became God-human. But this does not mean that it has changed. The Person of the Son had only a divine nature, and the same Person without change began to have a God-human nature from two natures.

Thus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, not a new Son or a mixture of two sons. The Person is the same.

And I understood also that the Virgin didn't bear the the Divine Nature or Hypostasis. Did I get this right?

We can say that the Deity was born of the Virgin only by union with the flesh, and not by the properties of the Deity. Literally, the Deity was not born of the Virgin.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

God is three hypostases, each having a Person.

Can a Hypostasis exist without a Prosopon?

The person was Divine, became God-human. But this does not mean that it has changed. The Person of the Son had only a divine nature, and the same Person without change began to have a God-human nature from two natures.

Thus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, not a new Son or a mixture of two sons. The Person is the same.

The Person's Nature and Hypostasis changed. So the Person has become another Person.

What is the other hypostasis? Did he have a prosopon?

We can say that the Deity was born of the Virgin only by union with the flesh, and not by the properties of the Deity. Literally, the Deity was not born of the Virgin.

So the Divine Word was not born from the Virgin as a human? So the blood of Jesus is not really the blood of God, but only by union and in moral value?

 

[Tigran1245]

Can a Hypostasis exist without a Prosopon?

Yes. For example, a stone, a tree, a dog - hypostases without Person.

The Person's Nature and Hypostasis changed. So the Person has become another Person.

No. If John's finger was cut off, his hypostasis would change. But his nature and Person would not change. John wouldn’t become another Person.

So the Divine Word was not born from the Virgin as a human? So the blood of Jesus is not really the blood of God, but only by union and in moral value?

Word was born as human but not as Divine Word itself.

Jesus Blood is God, but not by blood’s nature, but by unification with Word.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“As we say the body of Christ is God and is also divine because of the unification with God, similarly, [His] blood is God and is divine blood, and other [parts] likewise.”

“And since the Word became body by unification, then it is evident that the body of the Word became Word by the same unification. Then, therefore, the same body of Christ is God”

“Word is immortal in its nature, and the same becomes mortal by unification; as also humanity becomes immortal by unification, and is mortal in its [natural] property.”

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Yes. For example, a stone, a tree, a dog - hypostases without Person.

Good. So in the Trinity, the Hypostases have Personhood. Now, if we concentrate on the Hypostasis of the Son: what happened at His Incarnation?

No. If John's finger was cut off, his hypostasis would change. But his nature and Person would not change. John wouldn’t become another Person.

So the Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is still only Divine after the Incarnation? And His Hypostasis is still only single?

Word was born as human but not as Divine Word itself.

So only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?

Jesus Blood is God, but not by blood’s nature, but by unification with Word.

So this Blood does not have an eternal value in itself? Its value is only moral, by union to the Divine Nature that is eternal in value?

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“As we say the body of Christ is God and is also divine because of the unification with God, similarly, [His] blood is God and is divine blood, and other [parts] likewise.”

“And since the Word became body by unification, then it is evident that the body of the Word became Word by the same unification. Then, therefore, the same body of Christ is God”

“Word is immortal in its nature, and the same becomes mortal by unification; as also humanity becomes immortal by unification, and is mortal in its [natural] property.”

But why is the Humanity of Christ mortal if He is not sinful? Didn't death enter with sin?

 

[Tigran1245]

Good. So in the Trinity, the Hypostases have Personhood. Now, if we concentrate on the Hypostasis of the Son: what happened at His Incarnation?

The Divine hypostasis of the Word grew flesh in union with itself without any changing and became the God-human hypostasis of the incarnate Word from two: the Word and the flesh.

So the Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is still only Divine after the Incarnation

No, Divine and human.

And His Hypostasis is still only single?

No. Hypostases is not single, but united, composite after the union.

So only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?

Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature.

So this Blood does not have an eternal value in itself? Its value is only moral, by union to the Divine Nature that is eternal in value?

Without the union with the Word, the blood would be no different from our blood. And there will be no incarnation.

But why is the Humanity of Christ mortal if He is not sinful? Didn't death enter with sin?

With sin came forced death and forced passions. But voluntary passions existed before the fall.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The Divine hypostasis of the Word grew flesh in union with itself without any changing and became the God-human hypostasis of the incarnate Word from two: the Word and the flesh.

So the flesh is another hypostasis? The Word just got united to flesh? He did not become flesh?

I mean, I need to know this: Is the Word now 100% Human by Nature?

No, Divine and human.

So the Person of the Son changed His Nature; previously, He was only Divine by Nature, and now He is Divine AND Human by Nature.

No. Hypostases is not single, but united, composite after the union.

So we have like an additional Hypostasis united to the Trinity?

Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature.

Sorry, I didn't understand. For instance, what does "God of Word" mean?

I had asked a simple question:
Only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?

Without the union with the Word, the blood would be no different from our blood. And there will be no incarnation.

So the Word just got united to flesh? He was not incarnated? He did not become flesh?

With sin came forced death and forced passions. But voluntary passions existed before the fall.

Okay. I will forget about this for this thread. I think it will take us off topic.

 

[Tigran1245]

So the flesh is another hypostasis? The Word just got united to flesh? He did not become flesh?So the Word just got united to flesh? He was not incarnated? He did not become flesh?

He did not become flesh in the sense of being transformed into flesh. This is the heresy of Eutyches.

He became flesh because he united with flesh and made flesh His instrument. Only in this sense.

God of Word - musician. Flesh - instrument. And they are not separated, but one hypostasis, person and nature.

I mean, I need to know this: Is the Word now 100% Human by Nature?

Word has in his nature 100% human nature, but nature of Word is not on 100% human. Divinity is not human by nature and humanity is not divine by nature.

So the Person of the Son changed His Nature; previously, He was only Divine by Nature, and now He is Divine AND Human by Nature.

But Divine nature wasn’t changed.

So we have like an additional Hypostasis united to the Trinity?

We don‘t Have separate human hypostasis in Trinity. One God-human hypostasis of Son.

Sorry, I didn't understand. For instance, what does "God of Word" mean?

Hypostasis of God of Word - individualised divine nature. Hypostases of Word = divine nature + individual divine property “born from Father”.

I had asked a simple question:
Only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?

I answer again. Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature. Only this answer os Orthodox. Jesus was born only by human nature, not divine nature.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

He did not become flesh in the sense of being transformed into flesh. This is the heresy of Eutyches.

Okay, so let's consider you the teacher: So Eutyches taught that the Divine Nature became flesh? The error of Monophysitism is that it teaches the Divine Nature became Human Nature? Not that the Human Nature was deified?

He became flesh because he united with flesh and made flesh His instrument. Only in this sense.

He who? The Hypostasis (the Son)? He just united Himself to flesh? He did not become flesh?

You surely know Armenian. Let's read from our Confession of the Orthodox Faith:

"Հաւատամք զմինն յերից Անձանց [Armenian equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] զԲանն Աստուած` ծնեալ ի Հօրէ նախ քան զյաւիտեանս. ի ժամանակի իջեալ յԱստուածածին կոյսն Մարիամ, առեալ յարենէ նորա` միաւորեաց ընդ իւրում Աստուածութեանն [The Second Hypostasis took from the flesh of the Virgin and united it to His Divinity; He didn't unite Himself to the flesh, but He united the flesh taken from the Virgin to His Divinity!], իննամսեայ ժուժկալեալ յարգանդի անարատ կուսին. և եղև Աստուածն կատարեալ` մարդ կատարեալ հոգւով և մտօք և մարմնով [the Perfect God became perfect Man in spirit and mind and body]. մի անձն [equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis], մի դէմ [equivalent of the Greek Prosopon] և միաւորեալ մի Բնութիւն [one united Physis]: Աստուածն մարդացեալ առանց փոփոխման և առանց այլայլութեան. անսերմն յղութիւն և անապական ծնունդ. որպէս ոչ է սկիզբն Աստուածութեան նորա` և ոչ վախճան մարդկութեան նորա, (զի Յիսուս Քրիստոս երէկ և այսօր` նոյն և յաւիտեան):"

God of Word - musician. Flesh - instrument. And they are not separated, but one hypostasis, person and nature.

Again, I didn't understand. But whatever... Seems you will not be able to clarify your point.

Word has in his nature 100% human nature, but nature of Word is not on 100% human. Divinity is not human by nature and humanity is not divine by nature.

So per your teaching, the Word is NOT 100% Human by Nature; He only HAS a 100% Human Nature in His composite Nature, and thus He is a 200%: 100% Human and ANOTHER 100% Divine. This is heresy. This is actually the problem with Nestorianism.

And you still didn't tell me if the Virgin bore the Divine Person. I still couldn't understand if you believe the Divine Person was really born! This was the main issue with Nestorius. Is the Virgin Theotokos? Was the Divine Person really born, or He just united Himself to a hypostasis that was born from the Virgin? This makes the whole difference.

But Divine nature wasn’t changed.

Per your theory, it did.

We don‘t Have separate human hypostasis in Trinity. One God-human hypostasis of Son.

Per your theory, we have a human hypostasis UNITED to the Hypostasis of the Word. But a fourth hypostasis nonetheless, because, as you insisted at the beginning of our discussions, we should never annul any of the Hypostases or Natures.

Hypostasis of God of Word - individualised divine nature. Hypostases of Word = divine nature + individual divine property “born from Father”.

Nice. But I couldn't understand again. Maybe it's me...

I answer again. Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature. Only this answer os Orthodox. Jesus was born only by human nature, not divine nature.

I prefer the really orthodox Confession of the Orthodox Faith which I quoted above. It is very clear.

 

[Tigran1245]

Okay, so let's consider you the teacher: So Eutyches taught that the Divine Nature became flesh? The error of Monophysitism is that it teaches the Divine Nature became Human Nature?

Yes, teaching that Divine nature became or changed into human nature is heresy of Monophysitism: two natures change, and Christ is no longer man and no longer God, but a third nature.

Not that the Human Nature was deified?

Deification of human nature is Orthodox teaching. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites recognize it.

He who? The Hypostasis (the Son)? He just united Himself to flesh? He did not become flesh?

He became flesh because Word united with flesh in its Person, not turn into flesh.

You surely know Armenian. Let's read from our Confession of the Orthodox Faith:

"Հաւատամք զմինն յերից Անձանց [Armenian equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] զԲանն Աստուած` ծնեալ ի Հօրէ նախ քան զյաւիտեանս. ի ժամանակի իջեալ յԱստուածածին կոյսն Մարիամ, առեալ յարենէ նորա` միաւորեաց ընդ իւրում Աստուածութեանն [The Second Hypostasis took from the flesh of the Virgin and united it to His Divinity; He didn't unite Himself to the flesh, but He united the flesh taken from the Virgin to His Divinity!], իննամսեայ ժուժկալեալ յարգանդի անարատ կուսին. և եղև Աստուածն կատարեալ` մարդ կատարեալ հոգւով և մտօք և մարմնով [the Perfect God became perfect Man in spirit and mind and body]. մի անձն [equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis], մի դէմ [equivalent of the Greek Prosopon] և միաւորեալ մի Բնութիւն [one united Physis]: Աստուածն մարդացեալ առանց փոփոխման և առանց այլայլութեան. անսերմն յղութիւն և անապական ծնունդ. որպէս ոչ է սկիզբն Աստուածութեան նորա` և ոչ վախճան մարդկութեան նորա, (զի Յիսուս Քրիստոս երէկ և այսօր` նոյն և յաւիտեան):"

Unfortunately, I don't know Armenian very well. But I will say that different Armenian Fathers have different terminology.

You quote the Creed of Grigor Tatevatsi. Grigor Tatevatsi gives definitions of his terms in “Book of Questions”.

To my mind, անձ - Person and ենթադրութիւն - Hypostasis. And Vatche Ghazarian translates անձ as person in his translation of “Book of Questions“ into English.

The same thing writes scholar Khachik Grigorian about Gregory of Tatev:

So in the Creed I don’t see Hypostasis but only Person.

So per your teaching, the Word is NOT 100% Human by Nature; He only HAS a 100% Human Nature in His composite Nature, and thus He is a 200%: 100% Human and ANOTHER 100% Divine. This is heresy. This is actually the problem with Nestorianism.

Divinity and Humanity are parts of Christ. 100% of Christ is not divine, 100% of Christ is not human. If you disagree, you will have 200% Christ. And it is 2 Christs. Nestorianism.

And you still didn't tell me if the Virgin bore the Divine Person. I still couldn't understand if you believe the Divine Person was really born! This was the main issue with Nestorius. Is the Virgin Theotokos? Was the Divine Person really born, or He just united Himself to a hypostasis that was born from the Virgin? This makes the whole difference.

Virgin bore Divine Person. And after this Person is called human too.

Per your theory, we have a human hypostasis UNITED to the Hypostasis of the Word. But a fourth hypostasis nonetheless, because, as you insisted at the beginning of our discussions, we should never annul any of the Hypostases or Natures.

There is no fourth hypostasis. The Nestorians received four hypostases because they did not unite the hypostases of the Word and the flesh. We confess the one united hypostasis of Christ. And the Divine Logos in this hypostasis did not change, i.e. the Deity did not change.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Yes, teaching that Divine nature became or changed into human nature is heresy of Monophysitism: two natures change, and Christ is no longer man and no longer God, but a third nature.

But not the heresy of Eutyches. A teacher like you should be careful to be precise.

Deification of human nature is Orthodox teaching. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites recognize it.

No. The Human Nature of Christ did not change: No mixing, no mingling, no change, no trasubstantiation.

He became flesh because Word united with flesh in its Person, not turn into flesh.

No, the Word became flesh, as we have seen in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith; He didn't just unite to flesh. The confessions of the Church are clear.

Unfortunately, I don't know Armenian very well. But I will say that different Armenian Fathers have different terminology.

What I quoted is the official Confession that we use in the Armenian Apostolic Church, not just a terminology of a Father.

You quote the Creed of Grigor Tatevatsi. Grigor Tatevatsi gives definitions of his terms in “Book of Questions”.

View attachment 362766

To my mind, անձ - Person and ենթադրութիւն - Hypostasis. And Vatche Ghazarian translates անձ as person in his translation of “Book of Questions“ into English.

The same thing writes scholar Khachik Grigorian about Gregory of Tatev:
View attachment 362767

So in the Creed I don’t see Hypostasis but only Person.

The Confession is clear: Անձ is Hypostasis, Դէմ is literally Prosopon (Face). Ենթադրութիւն is not even mentioned in the whole Confession.

Divinity and Humanity are parts of Christ. 100% of Christ is not divine, 100% of Christ is not human. If you disagree, you will have 200% Christ. And it is 2 Christs. Nestorianism.

Christ is 100% Divine and 100% Human in ONE united Nature, so He is 100% God-Man. He is ONE Christ, the Incarnated Second Hypostasis of the Trinity.

According to your theory, Divinity and Humanity are two 100% parts of Christ, so Christ is 200%. This is Nestorianism.

Virgin bore Divine Person. And after this Person is called human too.

Good. So the Divine PERSON was born of Mary, and not just a human Hypostasis. So the Divine Person became flesh.

There is no fourth hypostasis. The Nestorians received four hypostases because they did not unite the hypostases of the Word and the flesh. We confess the one united hypostasis of Christ. And the Divine Logos in this hypostasis did not change, i.e. the Deity did not change.

Nestorians also say the human hypostasis is united to the Divine Hypostasis in one Prosopon, but they do not form one united Hypostasis. The whole difference is semantic: you just say they are one, yet they both still exist. So you have two Christs: one Divine and another human. And thus the Trinity added a fourth hypostasis that is 100% human...

 

[Tigran1245]

No. The Human Nature of Christ did not change: No mixing, no mingling, no change, no trasubstantiation.

Christ's nature was completely deified and became incorruptible, not corruptible like our nature. Christ in his nature did not have the consequences of original sin.

No, the Word became flesh, as we have seen in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith; He didn't just unite to flesh. The confessions of the Church are clear.

Turning divinity into flesh is heresy. When Fathers are talking about Word becoming flesh, it means that Word united with flesh and make this flesh His flesh.

What I quoted is the official Confession that we use in the Armenian Apostolic Church, not just a terminology of a Father.

This is the personal Symbol of Saint Tatevatsi, which was accepted by our Church. We must analyze terminology of St. Gregory, not our fantasies.

The Confession is clear: Անձ is Hypostasis, Դէմ is literally Prosopon (Face). Ենթադրութիւն is not even mentioned in the whole Confession.

Անձ is Person both in russian and in English translations of the Creed I found.

Դէմ is Countenance

St. Gregory of Tatev’s Confession of Faith

The following is the confession of faith, or explanation of the Creed of St. Gregory of Tatev (1346-1409). He was an Armenian Orthodox monk and theologian who fought against the attempted incursion…

polishmiaphysite.wordpress.com

According to your theory, Divinity and Humanity are two 100% parts of Christ, so Christ is 200%. This is Nestorianism.

You have very big problems with Math.

100%*x+100%*y=100%*z
1*x+1*y=1*z
x+y=z ✅

x - humanity, y - divinity, z - Christ

Good. So the Divine PERSON was born of Mary, and not just a human Hypostasis. So the Divine Person became flesh.

Yes, Devine Person became flesh

Nestorians also say the human hypostasis is united to the Divine Hypostasis in one Prosopon, but they do not form one united Hypostasis. The whole difference is semantic: you just say they are one, yet they both still exist.

If we confess two separate hypostases, the deification of Christ's humanity will be impossible. And only man will die on the cross, not God incarnate. It will also be impossible to say that God died on the Cross.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Christ's nature was completely deified and became incorruptible, not corruptible like our nature. Christ in his nature did not have the consequences of original sin.

Christ's Human Essence was NOT deified. That's Eutychianism.

N.B.: "Human Essence" (Ousía) is the reformed form for Christ's Human "Nature".

Turning divinity into flesh is heresy. When Fathers are talking about Word becoming flesh, it means that Word united with flesh and make this flesh His flesh.

Yes, turning the Divine Essence to flesh is heresy. It is the Word that became flesh by uniting Human Essence to His Divine Essence.

N.B.: As I consider that I got my answer concerning what you believe, then I start to use the reformed term "Essence" (Greek Ousía) for Christ's two "Natures" that were united in His one Hypostasis as one united Nature.

This is the personal Symbol of Saint Tatevatsi, which was accepted by our Church. We must analyze terminology of St. Gregory, not our fantasies.

No, this is not a personal confession, but the Confession of the Orthodox Faith. It agrees perfectly with what Pope Shnouda III teaches in his book "The Nature of Christ", because this is the Orthodox Miaphysite formulation.

Անձ is Person both in russian and in English translations of the Creed I found.

Yes, just as Hypostasis for the Trinity is Persona in Latin and Person in English and Անձ in Armenian. This is how consistency works.

Դէմ is Countenance

View attachment 362780

St. Gregory of Tatev’s Confession of Faith

The following is the confession of faith, or explanation of the Creed of St. Gregory of Tatev (1346-1409). He was an Armenian Orthodox monk and theologian who fought against the attempted incursion…

polishmiaphysite.wordpress.com

Yes, Countenance is a good way to translate the Greek Prosopon (Face). In Classical Armenian (Grabar or Krapar) it's Դէմ. In Modern Armenian it's Դէմք.

You have very big problems with Math.

Yes, I am an ignorant, that's why I need to learn from you. I am thankful that you are humble enough to teach me without mocking.

100%*x+100%*y=100%*z
1*x+1*y=1*z
x+y=z ✅

x - humanity, y - divinity, z - Christ

Yes, in your theory Christ is not 100% Human. In your theory, z is not 100% human, so He is not 100% like us except sin. And in your theory z is not 100% Divine, 100% the same Logos who was before His Incarnation (Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever). Before the Incarnation, Christ was 100% Divine, the whole Person (Hypostasis) of Christ was Divine. Z was 100%x. In your theory, suddenly, when He was incarnated, z ceased to be 100%x; He changed. In your theory, Christ became 100%x PLUS 100%y; so He became a 200% Person = Nestorianism.

Yes, Devine Person became flesh

The whole Person, yes. The whole Nature of this Person is now 100% flesh without ceasing to be 100% Divine. It is a UNITED Nature, not two Natures that are added to each other, walking side by side). The Logos is PERFECT in His Divinity and PERFECT in His Humanity. He is perfectly Divine and perfectly Human. He didn't change. Before the Incarnation, the whole of the Logos was 100% Divine; after the Incarnation, the whole of the Logos is still 100% Divine. He didn't change.

Here is the Common formula with your x, y and z:

"We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos [z], is perfect in His Divinity [100%x] and perfect in His Humanity [100%y]. He made His Humanity one [x is as much as y: they are 1] with His Divinity without mixture nor mingling, nor confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye. At the same time, we anathematize the doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches."
— Mixed Commission of the Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church: Common formula on Christology

So:
x = y = 1
x * y = z = 1
Because 1 * 1 = 1.

If we confess two separate hypostases, the deification of Christ's humanity will be impossible. And only man will die on the cross, not God incarnate. It will also be impossible to say that God died on the Cross.

It is not the Human Nature that died on the cross, but Christ (the one Person, i.e. the one Hypostasis). If the One who died on the cross were not Human like us in all His Person, then He wouldn't be able to represent us. And if the One who died on the cross were not Divine in all His Person, then He would not be able to atone for our sins and rise from the dead victorious.