One divine person in Jesus

[Tigran1245]

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

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Let us also say that He did not take the first nature of Adam, but took from the race of Adam our corruptible and, having connected it with Himself, transformed it into the first innocent and incorruptible nature of Adam.

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

Either one thing is transformed into another, or one thing is combined with another into a single thing. There is no third option logically given.

Yes, in your theory Christ is not 100% Human.

Christ is 100% human. But 100% of Christ is not only 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.

There was no Z before incarnation. There was Y (God of Word). Y didn’t change.

Before: Hypostasis(100%God of Word) —-> Person of God of Word
After: Hypostasis(100%God of Word + 100%flesh = 100%God of Word incarnate) ——> Person of God of Word

Divinity of Christ and Person of Christ are the same, no change.

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.

To say that 100% of Christ is God = to say that Christ is only God.
To say that 100% of Christ is man = to say that Christ is only man.
No, it is heresy to say that 100% of Christ is God, because Christ is not only God. And it is heresy to say that 100% of Christ is man, because Christ is not only man.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Therefore, the human alone or simply God is not pronounced Christ, but, as we have demonstrated, the unity of the two.

He made His Humanity one [x is as much as y: they are 1] with His Divinity without mixture nor mingling, nor confusion.

This does not mean that x=y=1. It is directly stated here that x+y=1.

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

If x=y, that means that divine properties are the same as human properties, divinity is humanity by properties. And it is Eutichianism.
You should believe in difference of x and y. Divinity ≠ humanity. Divinity > humanity. They are different natures in one united nature.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Against Eutyches, [it needs] to be said clearly that [Christ] maintains the properties of [each] nature in the unified natures.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Let us also say that He did not take the first nature of Adam, but took from the race of Adam our corruptible and, having connected it with Himself, transformed it into the first innocent and incorruptible nature of Adam.

Nice. As you see, it was not deified. Adam's nature was human, not divine.

Either one thing is transformed into another, or one thing is combined with another into a single thing. There is no third option logically given.

Or both Essences are united in the One Hypostasis of the Word in a way that is above our human logic.

Christ is 100% human. But 100% of Christ is not only human.

Yes, in your theory, Christ changed after the Incarnation. Before the Incarnation He was fully Divine; after the Incarnation only a part of Him stayed fully Divine. What a heresy!

There was no Z before incarnation. There was Y (God of Word). Y didn’t change.

Let's see again what you said:

x - humanity, y - divinity, z - Christ

Wow! So now you say there was no Christ before the Incarnation! Only The Divinity of Christ existed WITHOUT a Person or Hypostasis!

Now you entered in the realm of cults who deny the Trinity before the Incarnation! They say the Son became the Son after the Incarnation...

Before: Hypostasis(100%God of Word) —-> Person of God of Word
After: Hypostasis(100%God of Word + 100%flesh = 100%God of Word incarnate) ——> Person of God of Word

Divinity of Christ and Person of Christ are the same, no change.

What you say is this:

Before: The Person of the Word is only 100%God of Word.
After: The Person of the Word is NOT 100%God of Word.

=> C H A N G E. It's another Person with another nature.

To say that 100% of Christ is God = to say that Christ is only God.
To say that 100% of Christ is man = to say that Christ is only man.

No.
100% of the sunbeam is light, but the sunbeam is not only light.
100% of the sunbeam is heat, but the sunbeam is not only heat.

You want to examine the Mysterious Nature of Christ with your limited human mind.

No, it is heresy to say that 100% of Christ is God, because Christ is not only God. And it is heresy to say that 100% of Christ is man, because Christ is not only man.

Based on your false logic.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Therefore, the human alone or simply God is not pronounced Christ, but, as we have demonstrated, the unity of the two.

The unity of the two in one Nature, not the addition of the two.

This does not mean that x=y=1. It is directly stated here that x+y=1.

Where did you read about any addition?

If x=y, that means that divine properties are the same as human properties, divinity is humanity by properties. And it is Eutichianism.
You should believe in difference of x and y. Divinity ≠ humanity. Divinity > humanity. They are different natures in one united nature.

You were doing math, now you are doing physics... In math x = y = 1. Christ is 100% of x and y. In Physics the properties are different and always distinct: never mingled or mixed or changed or transformed.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

Against Eutyches, [it needs] to be said clearly that [Christ] maintains the properties of [each] nature in the unified natures.

Indeed. But that's physics. Stick with math, because you claimed to be a teacher of math...

 

[Tigran1245]

Nice. As you see, it was not deified. Adam's nature was human, not divine.

Adam had not divine, but deified human nature. As we are deifiing in the Eucharist. Grace - is Divinity.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“Therefore, we taste the divine and not human flesh and blood, and by tasting [the divine] we attain divine ability and cease to be human.”

Yes, in your theory, Christ changed after the Incarnation.

Son changed in his human nature (if nothing change - no reason for incarnation), but not in his divinity. Divinity is unchangeable.

Wow! So now you say there was no Christ before the Incarnation! Only The Divinity of Christ existed WITHOUT a Person or Hypostasis!

Now you entered in the realm of cults who deny the Trinity before the Incarnation! They say the Son became the Son after the Incarnation...

There was Person and divine nature before incarnation. But the name Christ is the name of this and the same Person received after incarnation. It is incorrect to call before incarnation Son - Christ.

=> C H A N G E. It's another Person

It is the same person, person doesn’t change, if its nature or accidents change. If I change my accidents (hypostasis), I don’t change my Person, because I am still I.

with another nature.

But Son has not the same only divine nature, but double nature out of two natures.

No.
100% of the sunbeam is light, but the sunbeam is not only light.
100% of the sunbeam is heat, but the sunbeam is not only heat.

If we talk about parts as different properties, and not about physical parts, then here heat and light are parts.
So, the same way Holy Fathers say that soul has three parts: nutritious, sensible and rational.

You were doing math, now you are doing physics... In math x = y = 1. Christ is 100% of x and y. In Physics the properties are different and always distinct: never mingled or mixed or changed or transformed.

Indeed. But that's physics. Stick with math, because you claimed to be a teacher of math...

I don't have the strength to answer all this. Perhaps it will be clearer this way.

G - Divine properties, H - human properties, C - Christ nature properties

G={g1, g2, g3, g4, … gn}
H={h1, h2, h3, h4 … hn}

G∩H=∅

C = HUG = {h1, h2, h3,..., hn, g1, g2, g3, ..., gn}

Christ is consubstational with Father and us:

C∩G={g1, g2, g3, g4, … gn}

C∩H={h1, h2, h3, h4 … hn}

Christ in His nature has fully divine properties, and fully human properties. Therefore He is fully God and fully man. But not only God and only man. What is your problem with this?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Adam had not divine, but deified human nature. As we are deifiing in the Eucharist. Grace - is Divinity.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“Therefore, we taste the divine and not human flesh and blood, and by tasting [the divine] we attain divine ability and cease to be human.”

Indeed, Christ's flesh and blood are Divine by Nature, as we have seen. Finally you admit it. By being in communion with Christ, we are partakers of the Divine Physis (Nature). But Adam did not have this.

Son changed in his human nature (if nothing change - no reason for incarnation), but not in his divinity. Divinity is unchangeable.

The Human Essence did NOT exist before the Incarnation, so how would it change?

But in your theory, the Son changed: previously, He was wholly Divine, but after the Incarnation, in your theory, only a part of Him is Divine. So you have another Person, another Christ, another Son.

There was Person and divine nature before incarnation. But the name Christ is the name of this and the same Person received after incarnation. It is incorrect to call before incarnation Son - Christ.

So you have another Person after the Incarnation.

Christ said that HE (and not another Person) is (exists) before Abraham. You say He only was formed after the Incarnation. That's heresy, and even cultic.

It is the same person, person doesn’t change, if its nature or accidents change. If I change my accidents (hypostasis), I don’t change my Person, because I am still I.

No, you are not you anymore when your nature changes. If you're now wholly human, and then you become only in part human and in part alien, you are NOT that same person who was wholly human anymore; you have become another person.

But Son has not the same only divine nature, but double nature out of two natures.

You still insist on addition, while the truth is that there is union between the Essences in ONE Nature, and not an addition to form a new nature.

If we talk about parts as different properties, and not about physical parts, then here heat and light are parts.
So, the same way Holy Fathers say that soul has three parts: nutritious, sensible and rational.

No, the WHOLE of the sunbeam is heat, and the WHOLE of the sunbeam is light.

Just as Cyril of Alexandria and also Dioscorus gave the example of the ignited iron: it is iron united to fire, and not iron and fire. It is not addition, but union.

I don't have the strength to answer all this. Perhaps it will be clearer this way.

G - Divine properties, H - human properties, C - Christ nature properties

G={g1, g2, g3, g4, … gn}
H={h1, h2, h3, h4 … hn}

G∩H=∅

C = HUG = {h1, h2, h3,..., hn, g1, g2, g3, ..., gn}

Christ is consubstational with Father and us:

C∩G={g1, g2, g3, g4, … gn}

C∩H={h1, h2, h3, h4 … hn}

Christ in His nature has fully divine properties, and fully human properties. Therefore He is fully God and fully man. But not only God and only man. What is your problem with this?

We have seen that Christ is WHOLLY God-Man. There is UNION between the Divine and Human Essences in ONE United Nature (Physis), and not addition. We have ONE Christ and Son.

 

[Tigran1245]

Indeed, Christ's flesh and blood are Divine by Nature, as we have seen. Finally you admit it. By being in communion with Christ, we are partakers of the Divine Physis (Nature). But Adam did not have this.

Christs blood is divine, but by union with divinity, not by its own nature.

We are not partakers of Divine Physis the same way as Christ has divine physis. We won’t take a new nature and become gods by nature, but by grace only.

The Human Essence did NOT exist before the Incarnation, so how would it change?

Human essence existed before incarnation. Human essence of Christ and us was created with Adam, when all essences were created.

When I said “changes in human nature”, that doesn’t mean that human nature changes. That means that Christ is always changing as man by human properties, not as God by divine properties.

But in your theory, the Son changed: previously, He was wholly Divine, but after the Incarnation, in your theory, only a part of Him is Divine. So you have another Person, another Christ, another Son.

No, substance of the Person has changed without changing divinity, not the Person itself.

If I have water in a glass and I add oil to it, the glass does not change. Therefore, Person does not change. Oil and water do not lose their properties, but together form a single whole.

Christ said that HE (and not another Person) is (exists) before Abraham. You say He only was formed after the Incarnation. That's heresy, and even cultic.

Once again.

Christ - is a name of Person, that has divine-human nature, not only divine. So, Person of Son received this name only when this Person took human nature, not before.

God of Word without body and spirit is not Christ, as Gregory of Tatev say:

And regarding division of the whole into parts, as with the diminution of one part the whole becomes imperfect, likewise in God the Word, spirit, and body totally united are Christ, and by the diminution of one of them Christ does not remain.

You still insist on addition, while the truth is that there is union between the Essences in ONE Nature, and not an addition to form a new nature.

Two essences are one the same way as two essences of soul and body are one.

 

[David Lamb]

We are not partakers of Divine Physis the same way as Christ has divine physis. We won’t take a new nature and become gods by nature, but by grace only.

Where in the bible do we read that we become gods? Was it perhaps a typo for "We won’t take a new nature and become God's by nature"?

 

[Tigran1245]

Where in the bible do we read that we become gods? Was it perhaps a typo for "We won’t take a new nature and become God's by nature"?

Jesus answered them, «Is it not written in your law, «I said, «You are gods»́ (John.10:34)?
I said, «You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High (Ps.81:6).

But we are gods not by nature (if by nature, we are to be in the Trinity), but by grace.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Christs blood is divine, but by union with divinity, not by its own nature.

Christ's blood has one united NATURE: Divine-Human. Mia Physis. It's like the example of ignited iron: it is simultaneously iron and fire. The same can be said of the example of the sunbeam: heat-light.

Yes, the Essence of the body is Human, and yes, the Divine Essence is united to it, but we do not have here an addition; we have UNION. So you canNOT separate the two Essences. Yes, you distinguish them, you don't mix them, you don't confuse them, but you canNOT talk about them as working or acting each alone. They are UNITED. They act as ONE Nature. What is the one Nature of this blood? It is 100% Divine-Human, not 100% Divine AND 100% Human, and only Divine by a wrongly defined union. It's not an addition, but UNION.

Read again in the 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):"

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
In this Confession, when we use the Armenian Անձ for the Greek Hypostasis, it is the equivalent of the term Hypostasis as used in a technical way by the Cappadocian Fathers for the Persons of the Trinity, not as the equivalent of the Greek term Hypostasis in its original simple Greek meaning which is Essence and which is almost equivalent to the Greek Ousia. In Hebrews 1:3 we read:

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature [Hypostasis], and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3 NASB1995)

As you see, the NASB translators translated the Greek Hypostasis as Nature (though the exact equivalent of the Greek term would be Essence and not Nature), unlike the KJV and NKJV that wrongly translates it as Person. The Armenian Version translated Hebrews 1:3 very well with the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis:

«որ է լոյս փառաց եւ նկարագիր էութեան [Eyoutioun or Eyoutyoun, the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] նորա, որ կրէ զամենայն բանիւ զօրութեան իւրոյ, սրբութիւն մեղաց մերոց արարեալ՝ նստաւ ընդ աջմէ Մեծութեանն ի բարձունս»։

In the Van Dyck-Boustany version also, which is the most widely used Arabic version, Hypostasis is translated as جوهر (Jawhar = Essence).

The Armenian theologians continued to use the Greek Hypostasis as it was used in our Version of the Bible, i.e. as meaning Essence, as we see in the quotations that you made. You wrongly made them say what they are NOT saying. You made them say what their opponents were saying, making the Hypostasis become a distinct reality that was not Himself incarnated, but was added to another reality (human hypostasis). Of course, the difference between you and the Nestorians is that you are not simply saying "added", but "united", though the result is the same: you are adding the hypostases as we have seen in your mathematical equation x + y = z where z is Christ; Christ in your theory is NOT 100% y anymore, as He was before the Incarnation. This understanding is being propagated by some Nestorian apologists (as you also shared a video from a Nestorian apologist trying to convince us that Cyril and other theologians used Hypostasis in the way you are describing) in order to use the Miaphysite writings against Miaphysitism.

Thus, most of the confusion during the Nestorian and Chalcedonian controversies was caused by the different understandings of some key terms in the controversy, like Hypostasis and Physis and Qnoma and Kayana. We have seen - and you have quoted some sayings of Cyril of Alexandria and of Severus of Antioch and of Armenian Fathers - that Fathers like Cyril of Alexandria used the term Hypostasis in its simple Greek meaning, not in the technical meaning as it was used by the Cappadocian Fathers to distinguish the Three Persons in the Trinity. In the description of the Trinity, the Cappadocian Fathers distinguished between Ousia and Hypostasis: Ousia is the universal (the Divine Essence), Hypostasis is the particular (the Individual Reality that represents the One Ousia). Each of the Hypostases of the Trinity is the WHOLE Ousia (the WHOLE Godhead), yet they are Three distinct Hypostases. Each of the Three Persons of the Godhead has certain distinguishing characteristics, but all those characteristics belong to the WHOLE Divine Essence. There is no division in the Godhead. Thus the Perichoresis (a term first used by the Cappadocian Fathers) is expressed clearly for the Trinity: the eternal mutual indwelling and fellowship of the Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Term Hypostasis is not the equivalent of Prosopon. Prosopon is a different person that doesn't necessarily share the same characteristics with another person and certainly he is not in another person as Hypostasis is in the Divine Perichoresis; Prosopon is the English term person as we use it everyday. The term Hypostasis is used by the Cappadocian Fathers in a different way to distinguish the Persons of the Trinity. This is why in Arabic they distinguish between Hypostasis and Prosopon by using two terms: أقنوم (Ouqnoum, from the Syriac Qnoma), and شخص (Shakhs, the simple everyday usage of person in Arabic). For the Trinity, the Arab Christians do not use Shakhs, but Ouqnoum. In Armenian theology, as we have seen in some of your quotes, they did not follow the usage of the Cappadocian Fathers for the Trinity or for Hypostasis: In Armenian, we do not say the Trinity is Three Ենթադրութիւններ (Hypostases), but we say the Trinity is Three Անձեր (Persons), following the Latin Persona. The same is done in English, by the way. In Armenian, Hypostasis continued to be used in its simple Greek meaning, i.e. as meaning something very close to Ousia: Actually, it was used interchangeably with Ousia, as also we have seen in Cyril of Alexandria. But the Armenian way to distinguish between Person as used for the Persons of the Trinity, and Person as meaning Prosopon was the usage of the two terms Անձ and Դէմ, as we see it in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith above. Thus in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith and in Armenian theology as a whole, Անձ is the equivalent of Hypostasis as used by the Cappadocian Fathers for the Trinity, and Դէմ is the equivalent of the Greek Prosopon. Hypostasis in its simple Greek sense is NOT used in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith.

We are not partakers of Divine Physis the same way as Christ has divine physis. We won’t take a new nature and become gods by nature, but by grace only.

Who said otherwise? But Adam did not have this.

Human essence existed before incarnation. Human essence of Christ and us was created with Adam, when all essences were created.

But the Human Essence of Christ did not exist before the Incarnation, so you cannot talk about a change in it after the Incarnation. Christ did NOT have a Human Essence before the Incarnation. As for the human essence as a whole, Christ did NOT change it, but He UNITED it to His Divine Essence in ONE Physis (Nature). The Human Essence did NOT change.

When I said “changes in human nature”, that doesn’t mean that human nature changes. That means that Christ is always changing as man by human properties, not as God by divine properties.

Exactly! Christ was growing up and changed as Man! Not the Human Essence changing all alone! Christ is ONE Person, ONE Physis: One Nature with distinct but united Divine and Human Essences. Christ grew up, for example; it's NOT the Human Essence alone that grew up. Christ was hungry; it's not the Human Essence alone that got hungry. And the most important part for the Gospel: Christ died on the cross; it's not the Human Essence alone that died on the cross.

No, substance of the Person has changed without changing divinity, not the Person itself.

A person with another substance is another person. A book with another content is another book.

If I have water in a glass and I add oil to it, the glass does not change. Therefore, Person does not change. Oil and water do not lose their properties, but together form a single whole.

First, note that you said addition again, thus showing your wrong theory that the Logos ADDED Human Essence to His Divine Essence, whereas the truth is that the Logos UNITED Human Essence to His Divine Essence in ONE Nature.

The glass was previously full to the top with water. It was a glass of what? It was a glass of water. You can't add oil to it, because it is already full. If you empty the half of the glass and you add oil to the water, you have now a glass of water and oil, not a glass of water anymore. In the Incarnation, you have a glass that is simultaneously FULLY a glass of water and FULLY a glass of oil; fully! The original content of the glass did not change. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation that is above our human understanding.

Of course, the example of the glass does not give the exact meaning of the Incarnation, because the Person (Hypostasis) of Christ is never separate from His Essence or Nature, whereas the glass is not of the same essence or nature as its content.

Once again.

Christ - is a name of Person, that has divine-human nature, not only divine. So, Person of Son received this name only when this Person took human nature, not before.

Are we now discussing which name we should give to the Person? No! We are discussing if the SAME Person, with all who He is, existed as the SAME Person before the Incarnation.

By the way, the Logos was called Christ BEFORE the Incarnation. Actually, He is the Christ from all eternity, by eternal Generation from the Father. Jesus Christ is the SAME yesterday, today, and forever.

God of Word without body and spirit is not Christ, as Gregory of Tatev say:

And regarding division of the whole into parts, as with the diminution of one part the whole becomes imperfect, likewise in God the Word, spirit, and body totally united are Christ, and by the diminution of one of them Christ does not remain.

Yes, after the Incarnation, you cannot separate the Essences and still have the One Christ. This is what Gregory of Tatev is explaining. But Jesus Christ is the SAME yesterday, today and forever.

Two essences are one the same way as two essences of soul and body are one.

No, that was an example used by the Fathers NOT to explain the nature of the unity, but to explain the possibility of a unity from two essences. In other examples, like the example of the ignited iron, we do NOT have the same image, but the image of 100% of both iron and fire.

 

[David Lamb]

Jesus answered them, «Is it not written in your law, «I said, «You are gods»́ (John.10:34)?
I said, «You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High (Ps.81:6).

But we are gods not by nature (if by nature, we are to be in the Trinity), but by grace.

I think you mean Psalm 82:6. (Psalm 81:6 says: “I removed his shoulder from the burden; His hands were freed from the baskets.”)

The word ‘elohiym, translate as "gods" in Psalm 82:6 can also mean judges, rulers. That would fit with Almighty God saying:

“"Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” (Isa 45:22 NKJV)

God wouldn't say in Psalm 82 that human beings are gods, and then say through Isaiah, "I am God and there is no other."

Where does the bible say that we become gods by grace?

 

[Tigran1245]

Christ's blood has one united NATURE: Divine-Human. Mia Physis. It's like the example of ignited iron: it is simultaneously iron and fire. The same can be said of the example of the sunbeam: heat-light.

When I talk about parts, I don't talk about physical/material parts, but about a set of properties. We must distinguish between divine and human properties. And in your examples I see a clear distinction between the properties of fire and iron, light and heat.

Yes, the Essence of the body is Human, and yes, the Divine Essence is united to it, but we do not have here an addition; we have UNION.

This is a play on words. Unity of natures is to have all the properties of both natures together.

So you canNOT separate the two Essences. Yes, you distinguish them, you don't mix them, you don't confuse them, but you canNOT talk about them as working or acting each alone.

Yes, Christ does something as man, but not man or human nature does something.

What is the one Nature of this blood? It is 100% Divine-Human, not 100% Divine AND 100% Human, and only Divine by a wrongly defined union. It's not an addition, but UNION.

You are making a great mistake!
You are making blood consubstational with Divine Word! And If Divine Logos has divine-human nature and flesh has divine-human nature (you think so), they are consubstational. It is heresy bro…

Read again in the 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):"

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
In this Confession, when we use the Armenian Անձ for the Greek Hypostasis, it is the equivalent of the term Hypostasis as used in a technical way by the Cappadocian Fathers for the Persons of the Trinity, not as the equivalent of the Greek term Hypostasis in its original simple Greek meaning which is Essence and which is almost equivalent to the Greek Ousia. In Hebrews 1:3 we read:

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature [Hypostasis], and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3 NASB1995)

As you see, the NASB translators translated the Greek Hypostasis as Nature (though the exact equivalent of the Greek term would be Essence and not Nature), unlike the KJV and NKJV that wrongly translates it as Person. The Armenian Version translated Hebrews 1:3 very well with the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis:

«որ է լոյս փառաց եւ նկարագիր էութեան [Eyoutioun or Eyoutyoun, the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] նորա, որ կրէ զամենայն բանիւ զօրութեան իւրոյ, սրբութիւն մեղաց մերոց արարեալ՝ նստաւ ընդ աջմէ Մեծութեանն ի բարձունս»։

In the Van Dyck-Boustany version also, which is the most widely used Arabic version, Hypostasis is translated as جوهر (Jawhar = Essence).

The Armenian theologians continued to use the Greek Hypostasis as it was used in our Version of the Bible, i.e. as meaning Essence, as we see in the quotations that you made. You wrongly made them say what they are NOT saying. You made them say what their opponents were saying, making the Hypostasis become a distinct reality that was not Himself incarnated, but was added to another reality (human hypostasis). Of course, the difference between you and the Nestorians is that you are not simply saying "added", but "united", though the result is the same: you are adding the hypostases as we have seen in your mathematical equation x + y = z where z is Christ; Christ in your theory is NOT 100% y anymore, as He was before the Incarnation. This understanding is being propagated by some Nestorian apologists (as you also shared a video from a Nestorian apologist trying to convince us that Cyril and other theologians used Hypostasis in the way you are describing) in order to use the Miaphysite writings against Miaphysitism.

Thus, most of the confusion during the Nestorian and Chalcedonian controversies was caused by the different understandings of some key terms in the controversy, like Hypostasis and Physis and Qnoma and Kayana. We have seen - and you have quoted some sayings of Cyril of Alexandria and of Severus of Antioch and of Armenian Fathers - that Fathers like Cyril of Alexandria used the term Hypostasis in its simple Greek meaning, not in the technical meaning as it was used by the Cappadocian Fathers to distinguish the Three Persons in the Trinity. In the description of the Trinity, the Cappadocian Fathers distinguished between Ousia and Hypostasis: Ousia is the universal (the Divine Essence), Hypostasis is the particular (the Individual Reality that represents the One Ousia). Each of the Hypostases of the Trinity is the WHOLE Ousia (the WHOLE Godhead), yet they are Three distinct Hypostases. Each of the Three Persons of the Godhead has certain distinguishing characteristics, but all those characteristics belong to the WHOLE Divine Essence. There is no division in the Godhead. Thus the Perichoresis (a term first used by the Cappadocian Fathers) is expressed clearly for the Trinity: the eternal mutual indwelling and fellowship of the Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Term Hypostasis is not the equivalent of Prosopon. Prosopon is a different person that doesn't necessarily share the same characteristics with another person and certainly he is not in another person as Hypostasis is in the Divine Perichoresis; Prosopon is the English term person as we use it everyday. The term Hypostasis is used by the Cappadocian Fathers in a different way to distinguish the Persons of the Trinity. This is why in Arabic they distinguish between Hypostasis and Prosopon by using two terms: أقنوم (Ouqnoum, from the Syriac Qnoma), and شخص (Shakhs, the simple everyday usage of person in Arabic). For the Trinity, the Arab Christians do not use Shakhs, but Ouqnoum. In Armenian theology, as we have seen in some of your quotes, they did not follow the usage of the Cappadocian Fathers for the Trinity or for Hypostasis: In Armenian, we do not say the Trinity is Three Ենթադրութիւններ (Hypostases), but we say the Trinity is Three Անձեր (Persons), following the Latin Persona. The same is done in English, by the way. In Armenian, Hypostasis continued to be used in its simple Greek meaning, i.e. as meaning something very close to Ousia: Actually, it was used interchangeably with Ousia, as also we have seen in Cyril of Alexandria. But the Armenian way to distinguish between Person as used for the Persons of the Trinity, and Person as meaning Prosopon was the usage of the two terms Անձ and Դէմ, as we see it in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith above. Thus in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith and in Armenian theology as a whole, Անձ is the equivalent of Hypostasis as used by the Cappadocian Fathers for the Trinity, and Դէմ is the equivalent of the Greek Prosopon. Hypostasis in its simple Greek sense is NOT used in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith.

I will take your vision into consideration.

For reference: I know four groups of Miaphysite theologians who assert different things regarding the interpretation of person, hypostasis, nature, essence. Here, you have formed a fifth group…

But you have seen my personal opinion on these issues.

Who said otherwise? But Adam did not have this.

Adam did not have it in the same degree. But Adam had grace, and any grace is divinity. Therefore Adam was immortal and incorruptible.

But the Human Essence of Christ did not exist before the Incarnation, so you cannot talk about a change in it after the Incarnation. Christ did NOT have a Human Essence before the Incarnation. As for the human essence as a whole, Christ did NOT change it, but He UNITED it to His Divine Essence in ONE Physis (Nature). The Human Essence did NOT change.

No, the human essence of Christ and ours existed before the incarnation. The human hypostasis did not exist.

Second Council of Ephesus adopted the formula "2 natures before the union, one nature after the union"

Grigor Tatevatsi has a similar formula: 2 natures at the beginning of the union, 1 nature in the middle of the union, 1 Person at the end of the union.

A person with another substance is another person.

No. If a man were to have a pig's heart transplanted, he would not only have the substance of a man. But he would have the same Person.

A book with another content is another book.

No. If we are in the process of writing a book, it will be the same book. Just as if we record a new video on a phone, it will be the same phone. So if a person is learning, developing, he will be the same Person as from birth.

The glass was previously full to the top with water. It was a glass of what? It was a glass of water. You can't add oil to it, because it is already full. If you empty the half of the glass and you add oil to the water, you have now a glass of water and oil, not a glass of water anymore. In the Incarnation, you have a glass that is simultaneously FULLY a glass of water and FULLY a glass of oil; fully! The original content of the glass did not change. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation that is above our human understanding.

You would be right if the glass was limited. But the glass is infinitely deep and in it is an infinity of water (Divinity). And only one drop of oil. This is analogy of Church Fathers: Divinity is the sea, humanity is a drop of vinegar.

By the way, the Logos was called Christ BEFORE the Incarnation. Actually, He is the Christ from all eternity, by eternal Generation from the Father. Jesus Christ is the SAME yesterday, today, and forever.

No, Jesus Christ is a name connected with humanity. If Logos had not become incarnate, He would not have been Christ. Incarnation is exclusively the will of God. And birth from the Father is by nature, not by will.

 

[Tigran1245]

Where does the bible say that we become gods by grace?

Word for word, the Bible, of course, doesn’t say this.

The patristic teaching on deification is briefly formulated in the famous phrase: “God became man so that man could become God,” which goes back to the formulations of Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius I the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, and other holy fathers.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

When I talk about parts, I don't talk about physical/material parts, but about a set of properties. We must distinguish between divine and human properties. And in your examples I see a clear distinction between the properties of fire and iron, light and heat.

Yes, the iron does not change to fire, nor does fire change to iron. Heat does not change to light, and light does not change to heat. We do NOT believe that the Essences change. But the union of fire and iron are together ONE Nature (unless you are Chalcedonian), so the fire does not work alone as fire essence, and the iron does not work alone as iron essence. The whole union works as one Nature, not separate essences. Yes, the iron's essence is iron and it is not changed; and yes, the fire's essence is fire and it is not changed. But we don't have fire and iron anymore: we don't have an addition as you keep insisting. We have UNION. So the WHOLE Person, in the case of Christ, is this one Nature. There is no part of this Person that is not wholly this one Nature which is FULLY Divine-Human.

I am feeling that you think flesh is the body and soul and everything that is in man. But in fact the flesh is the Essence of the body and soul and everything in man. When the Logos was incarnated, He united this Human Essence to His Divine Essence in One Person and One Nature. Thus the Logos became all what we humans are without changing His Divine Essence and without changing the Human Essence which He took from the Blessed Theotokos. Thus this body and soul and everything in man that is by Essence Human, is now united to the Divine Essence in One Nature. So this body is not only flesh by Nature, though it is flesh by Essence, because we do not separate the two Essences in Christ. We just distinguish them as I did in this paragraph. The body and soul in man each has its own essence, but both united have the one human nature. It is not only the body that is human by nature, as if the soul is not human by nature. By essence they differ, but by nature they are one. The heat has its essence and the light has its essence, but the whole of the sunbeam has one nature which is heat-light.

This is a play on words. Unity of natures is to have all the properties of both natures together.

Fully in the WHOLE Person. The Person is WHOLLY both Essences in One Nature. He is WHOLLY this One Nature.

Yes, Christ does something as man, but not man or human nature does something.

Exactly! Because He is One Person and One Nature.

You are making a great mistake!
You are making blood consubstational with Divine Word! And If Divine Logos has divine-human nature and flesh has divine-human nature (you think so), they are consubstational. It is heresy bro…

No, the two Essences don't have the same Essence. If I said they did, I would be making the error of consubstationalism which you are talking about here. I am saying the One Logos has One Nature with two Essences, Divine and Human (flesh). This is what the Confession of the Orthodox Faith says. Read it again.

You keep thinking about Divine and flesh: addition. But addition is heresy. As Pope Shenouda says in his book "The Nature of Christ":

"St. Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man"."

But you keep talking about God and Man...

I will take your vision into consideration.

For reference: I know four groups of Miaphysite theologians who assert different things regarding the interpretation of person, hypostasis, nature, essence. Here, you have formed a fifth group…

You know what you think you know. You understand what you think you understand.

But you have seen my personal opinion on these issues.

Correct them to be in line with the biblical truth. The Confession of the Orthodox Faith is very helpful: study it well.

Adam did not have it in the same degree. But Adam had grace, and any grace is divinity. Therefore Adam was immortal and incorruptible.

There is natural grace and spiritual grace. Spiritual grace is given in Christ Alone. The saints who lived before Christ only had it by hope, waiting for the Incarnation. The dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church is not a meaningless detail.

No, the human essence of Christ and ours existed before the incarnation. The human hypostasis did not exist.

Exactly! Of course, this is when Human Hypostasis means Human Essence of Christ. There was no human who was Christ the Man before the Incarnation.

Second Council of Ephesus adopted the formula "2 natures before the union, one nature after the union"

Yes, because that's the fact. And at that Council, they didn't distinguish between Physis and Ousia and Hypostasis.

Grigor Tatevatsi has a similar formula: 2 natures at the beginning of the union, 1 nature in the middle of the union, 1 Person at the end of the union.

Nice. And?

No. If a man were to have a pig's heart transplanted, he would not only have the substance of a man. But he would have the same Person.

That transplanted organ is not part of his nature. It is just transplanted. The transplanted organ did not become part of this man's nature.

Wrong example.

No. If we are in the process of writing a book, it will be the same book. Just as if we record a new video on a phone, it will be the same phone. So if a person is learning, developing, he will be the same Person as from birth.

But the Logos did not become Human half the way.

You are giving very bad examples, showing how wrong is your theory.

You would be right if the glass was limited. But the glass is infinitely deep and in it is an infinity of water (Divinity). And only one drop of oil. This is analogy of Church Fathers: Divinity is the sea, humanity is a drop of vinegar.

Christ is not just in part human.

No, Jesus Christ is a name connected with humanity. If Logos had not become incarnate, He would not have been Christ. Incarnation is exclusively the will of God. And birth from the Father is by nature, not by will.

Let me see: when was the Logos anointed with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Tigran1245]

Yes, the iron does not change to fire, nor does fire change to iron. Heat does not change to light, and light does not change to heat. We do NOT believe that the Essences change. But the union of fire and iron are together ONE Nature (unless you are Chalcedonian), so the fire does not work alone as fire essence, and the iron does not work alone as iron essence. The whole union works as one Nature, not separate essences. Yes, the iron's essence is iron and it is not changed; and yes, the fire's essence is fire and it is not changed.

Up to this point, I agree.

But we don't have fire and iron anymore: we don't have an addition as you keep insisting. We have UNION.

We have union, but both two natures continue to exist into one.

Archibishop Eznik Petrosian in his book “Christology of Armenian Apostolic Church”:

In the womb of the Holy Virgin, God the Word united with perfect human nature inseparably and without fusion. For this reason, we confess Christ as One nature. In saying this, we do not think that human nature is absorbed by the Divine or that the two natures have merged with each other. According to St. John Odznetsi, when we say, “One nature of God incarnate,” we should not understand that one of the natures is excluded by the other or that they have dissolved into each other, “then no nature will remain.” We say two natures in order, on the one hand, to show the inseparable unity of the two natures, and on the other, to emphasize that, due to the union with the Divine Logos, the perfect human nature has become deified. Accordingly, in the union, we must confess only One nature—the Divine [he means here the divine incarnate=godhuman], consisting of the inseparable unity of two essences—the perfect Divine and perfect human natures.

There is no part of this Person that is not wholly this one Nature which is FULLY Divine-Human.

And here you come to the doctrine of consubstantiality. For you, all parts have one and the same God-human nature. We do not confess unity of nature because all parts have one and the same nature. We confess that all parts with their own natures form one Christ with a united nature.

This is how Khosrovik the Interpreter condemns such heresy when he writes against the Docetists:

To such we shall answer that if I had said that the nature of the Word and the flesh is one, then I would have been one of those who said that God the Word and His flesh are consubstantial with each other, just as it is said that the [Persons] of the Holy Trinity are consubstantial with each other in their properties. But since we define the nature of the incarnate Word as one, then our word is quite far from accepting consubstantiality and only by union does one nature teach us to speak.

Of course, it was not only human nature that suffered, but this does not mean that the Divine nature suffered. Only by unity sufferings are attributed to the Deity, and not by nature. The Word suffered not by nature, but by unity with the flesh. And the flesh suffered not by unity with the Word, but by its nature. This is the canon of the Manazkert Council:

If anyone does not say that the body of the Lord is suffering and mortal by nature, and non-suffering and immortal by Divinity - in unity with the Word; but says that by nature it is non-suffering and immortal, or by an ineffable union it is suffering and mortal, let him be anathema.

You said that everything in Christ is divine-human by nature. And since everything is also divine by nature, it means that the Flesh of Christ did not suffer by its nature. Consequently, you fell under this anathema.

So this body is not only flesh by Nature, though it is flesh by Essence, because we do not separate the two Essences in Christ.

Essence and nature are the same thing. You say that the body is not only flesh by nature, but only flesh by essence. This is a contradiction…

The body and soul in man each has its own essence, but both united have the one human nature. It is not only the body that is human by nature, as if the soul is not human by nature. By essence they differ, but by nature they are one.

No. Essence=nature=“kind”. The body and the soul do not have human nature. Each of them has its own nature. Only the whole man has human nature and human essence.

The body is called soul or man not by nature, but by unity. Just as the soul is called body or man not by its nature, but by unity.

No, the two Essences don't have the same Essence. If I said they did, I would be making the error of consubstationalism which you are talking about here. I am saying the One Logos has One Nature with two Essences, Divine and Human (flesh). This is what the Confession of the Orthodox Faith says. Read it again.

You say that the body has a God-human nature. I described above why this leads to consubstantiality.

You keep thinking about Divine and flesh: addition. But addition is heresy.

Logos TOOK human nature and united it with divine nature in one nature.

As Pope Shenouda says in his book "The Nature of Christ":

"St. Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man"."

But you keep talking about God and Man...

You have misunderstood Pope Shenouda. Pope Shenouda does not deny that two natures continue to exist. He denies that they are separated, so that after the union there are two natures, not a dual one.

You contradict Pope Shenouda because he writes that «the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well.»

The same thing I wrote before, but you denied it:

C = HUG = {h1, h2, h3,..., hn, g1, g2, g3, ..., gn}

That transplanted organ is not part of his nature. It is just transplanted. The transplanted organ did not become part of this man's nature.

An organ is definitely a part of the hypostasis of a Person. It is neither a part of human nature nor an accident of human nature, and therefore not a part of the human hypostasis. Consequently, it has its own nature. Therefore, a Person with an existing organ will no longer be only a human nature, but a unified nature from the nature of man and the nature of the organ.

But the Logos did not become Human half the way.

He took upon himself all human qualities, so that he became a man like us. That Christ is not only a man, but more than a man, does not make him unman or less than a man. If in my nature I have some qualities, I am them. Here is how the Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy explains this issue:

In order that God the Word would become man it is not sufficient for him to put on humanity i.e. to be clothed with humanity. But the Word of God was incarnate and became Himself man while remaining God as He was. For example it is necessary for somebody in order to say “I am gold”, that he should have gold as his own nature through natural union. But if he only is wearing a ring of gold, he can never say “I am gold”. The Word of God incarnate said to the Jews: “me a man who has told you the truth” (John 8:40). This could never have been said unless He took our human nature and made it His own nature or His very own. Also we may notice that any human being can say I am flesh with reference to the body he owns and is united “according to nature” and “according to hypostasis” to his spirit.

Christ is not just in part human.

Christ has all human qualities, therefore he is a man. And not because of the reason he is limited to man.

Let me see: when was the Logos anointed with the Holy Spirit?

After the incarnation, according to St.Cyril:

[The name] “Jesus” [was given to Him] because He would save the people, and “Christ” because for our sake He was anointed. And so [the apostle] calls both Jesus and Christ not the naked Word, as He was before the incarnation, which is from God the Father, but the Word manifested in the flesh (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Homilia Paschalis VIII // PG. 77. Col. 568)

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Up to this point, I agree.

Thank God!

We have union, but both two natures continue to exist into one.

Without addition. We do not have addition, but UNION. Jesus Christ is FULLY God and Man simultaneously.

Archibishop Eznik Petrosian in his book “Christology of Armenian Apostolic Church”:

In the womb of the Holy Virgin, God the Word united with perfect human nature inseparably and without fusion. For this reason, we confess Christ as One nature. In saying this, we do not think that human nature is absorbed by the Divine or that the two natures have merged with each other. According to St. John Odznetsi, when we say, “One nature of God incarnate,” we should not understand that one of the natures is excluded by the other or that they have dissolved into each other, “then no nature will remain.” We say two natures in order, on the one hand, to show the inseparable unity of the two natures, and on the other, to emphasize that, due to the union with the Divine Logos, the perfect human nature has become deified. Accordingly, in the union, we must confess only One nature—the Divine [he means here the divine incarnate=godhuman], consisting of the inseparable unity of two essences—the perfect Divine and perfect human natures.

Eaxctly! So it is UNION, and not addition as you keep insisting.

And here you come to the doctrine of consubstantiality. For you, all parts have one and the same God-human nature. We do not confess unity of nature because all parts have one and the same nature. We confess that all parts with their own natures form one Christ with a united nature.

No, we do not have consubstantiality, just as the body and the soul in man are not consubstantial and YET they have the same one united nature which is the human nature. The body is human by nature though it is body by essence; the soul also is human by nature though it is soul by essence. The body does NOT change to soul by essence, nor does the soul turn to body by essence! Yet, they are both human by nature. So this does NOT mean that they are both of the same essence, but this DOES mean that they both have the one nature of the unity.

In the same way, the body and soul of Christ are Human by Essence (we use the term Essence instead of Nature to make the distinction in the Union), and the Logos is Divine by Essence, and yet by UNION in the One Person of the Logos we got a UNITED NATURE, and thus the body and soul of Christ are Divine-Human by Nature though only human by essence, and thus the Logos is Divine-Human by Nature though He is only Divine by Essence. The Second Hypostasis (Person) of the Trinity did not change. The body and soul do not turn to Divine by essence; the Logos does NOT turn to Human by essence. The Logos did NOT change in the Incarnation. There is no mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration, nor Transmutation of the two Essences.

You keep giving the example of the body and soul in human nature, and yet you do not really believe it as it seems.

This is how Khosrovik the Interpreter condemns such heresy when he writes against the Docetists:

To such we shall answer that if I had said that the nature of the Word and the flesh is one, then I would have been one of those who said that God the Word and His flesh are consubstantial with each other, just as it is said that the [Persons] of the Holy Trinity are consubstantial with each other in their properties. But since we define the nature of the incarnate Word as one, then our word is quite far from accepting consubstantiality and only by union does one nature teach us to speak.

You see? Khosrovik says what I am saying. The only thing you need in the English translation is to use the word Essence instead of Nature when talking about the two Essences of the United Nature of Christ, so that things may be clear as I explained above. Whenever we talk about a unity of natures, the two united natures should be called essences in order to distinguish them from the united nature. I don't have the text of Khosrovik in Armenian, so I don't know if he is making the distinction between Էութիւն (Essence) and Բնութիւն (Nature). But as much as I know of Armenian theological terms, most probably he didn't make a distinction by using two terms here.

Of course, it was not only human nature that suffered, but this does not mean that the Divine nature suffered.

The Divine Essence cannot suffer, and that's why the Incarnation was essential for our redemption. But the Logos DID suffer WHOLLY, and not in parts; He suffered as God-Man, and thus God suffered and died in flesh.

Only by unity sufferings are attributed to the Deity, and not by nature.

You mean not by Essence, but by Nature. We both need to use the terms in the same sense so that we may understand each other: This is what we do in the work of reformation of the Church. The Nature is that Unity: we believe in ONE United Nature, unless you're a Chalcedonian but you don't like that name Chalcedonian... By that One United Nature God was able to suffer and die. The Chalcedonians do not believe in this One United Nature, and this is one of the main reasons why in the Trisagion they cannot say God suffered or died or rose from the dead. I wonder how it works for them to say the Virgin is Theotokos: Can the Divine Nature (they call It Nature=Physis, and not Essence) be born from a woman?! They answer "Hypostatic Union!" Well, okay...

The Word suffered not by nature, but by unity with the flesh. And the flesh suffered not by unity with the Word, but by its nature. This is the canon of the Manazkert Council:

If anyone does not say that the body of the Lord is suffering and mortal by nature, and non-suffering and immortal by Divinity - in unity with the Word; but says that by nature it is non-suffering and immortal, or by an ineffable union it is suffering and mortal, let him be anathema.

Amen! Just replace "Nature" with "Essence" when it is about the Divine and Human Essences of Christ, and keep it "Nature" when it is about the United Nature; and all will be clear.

You said that everything in Christ is divine-human by nature. And since everything is also divine by nature, it means that the Flesh of Christ did not suffer by its nature. Consequently, you fell under this anathema.

First, be all-inclusive, as you said in another thread, and don't anathematize me. Because, as you said, the true Church is all-inclusive...

Second, we do NOT mingle or confuse or alter or transmute the Essences of Christ. The anathema is against Eutychians, not against Miaphysites.

Essence and nature are the same thing. You say that the body is not only flesh by nature, but only flesh by essence. This is a contradiction…

Yes, I know that Chalcedonians see this as a contradiction. But to explain these things to them, we give them the example which you like the most: the example of the body and soul in human nature. Though the essences of the body and the soul are different, and yet their nature is the same: it is the human nature. Thus they {hopefully} understand in what sense nature and essence are different when talking about a united nature. We hope the same for you.

No. Essence=nature=“kind”. The body and the soul do not have human nature. Each of them has its own nature. Only the whole man has human nature and human essence.

Our body is fully human body by nature. Our soul is fully human soul by nature. Only humans have these 23 pairs of chromosomes. Only human soul is spiritual by nature. No animal is like us. We are a unique creature of God, body and soul, called HUMANS.

The body is called soul or man not by nature, but by virtue of unity. Just as the soul is called body or man not by its nature, but by virtue of unity.

The hole human person is called flesh/body or soul by the unity that is called HUMAN NATURE. As both the body and the soul are united in the one human person and in the one united nature called human nature, so whatever this person does by this one nature (body-soul nature = human nature), is done by both the body and the soul simultaneously. You can never do anything by your body essence alone or your soul essence alone; you do everything by or according to your one human nature which is body-soul union. You cannot separate the two essences from each other, though you also distinguish them and you do not confuse them.

But note that, as I explained before, the body-soul union in human nature is used as an example for the possibility of such a union of two essences in one united nature in the case of the Logos, and NOT as an explanation of HOW the Union in Christ took place, because in the case of humans we do NOT have an incarnation of the soul in a body as it is in the case of the Incarnation of the Logos. When we were conceived in our mother's womb, there was not a person called the soul, who had a soul essence, and who came and united his soul essence to a body essence to form us. Mormons believe that the soul is incarnated, but I don't think you are a Mormon... New Agers and Druze believe in reincarnation, but I don't think you are a New Ager or Druze... So in this body-soul union example, body and soul are two essences, and the soul is NOT a preexistent person who united his essence to the body essence as it is in the case of the Logos. So soul and body in this example are both essences, NOT a person with a certain essence (the soul) being incarnated. This is why this example of body-soul union is NOT a complete or perfect explanation of the Union in the Incarnation, as our theologians explain, especially that the soul is separated from the body at death, while the Divine Essence is never separated from the Human Essence in Christ.

So yes, whenever the soul or the body does anything, both are doing it according to the one human nature which is the unity of body and soul. But in the case of Christ, we don't just have two Essences (Divine and Human) that were united, but we have a Divine Person, the Logos, who united His Divine Essence with the Human Essence in One United Nature, the fully Divine-Human Nature which is fully our nature per Its Human Essence, but only in our likeness per Its Divine Essence:

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3 NASB1995, underlined italic by me)

You say that the body has a God-human nature. I described above why this leads to consubstantiality.

Yes, the body of Christ has THE God-Human Nature, but only Human Essence. I explained above why you misunderstand this.

Logos TOOK human nature and united it with divine nature in one nature.

Yes, the Logos TOOK from the Virgin Human Essence and UNITED It (He didn't add it) with His Divine Essence in ONE Nature.

You have misunderstood Pope Shenouda. Pope Shenouda does not deny that two natures continue to exist. He denies that they are separated, so that after the union there are two natures, not a dual one.

Yes, what you just said is what I understood from what Pope Shenouda says, only by replacing "Natures" with "Essences" for clarification. I hope you also understand that Christ has ONE Nature, and stop talking about Him as two.

You contradict Pope Shenouda because he writes that «the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well.»

Yes! Having all the characteristics of both Essences FULLY, in all His Person, by Nature of the Unity, and not in parts as your theory says.

The same thing I wrote before, but you denied it:

C = HUG = {h1, h2, h3,..., hn, g1, g2, g3, ..., gn}

No, you contradict Pope Shenouda with this equation, as we have seen in details.

An organ is definitely a part of the hypostasis of a Person. It is neither a part of human nature nor an accident of human nature, and therefore not a part of the human hypostasis. Consequently, it has its own nature. Therefore, a Person with an existing organ will no longer be only a human nature, but a unified nature from the nature of man and the nature of the organ.

This is why your example of the pig organ (transplanted) is wrong, because the Logos became flesh; He didn't just add a human transplant.

Your "united nature" is like the unity of the Nestorians: it is only addition or a transplant. We can call your Christology Semi-Nestorian.

He took upon himself all human qualities, so that he became a man like us.

So your example of an incomplete book was wrong.

That Christ is not only a man, but more than a man, does not make him unman or less than a man. If in my nature I have some qualities, I am them. Here is how the Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy explains this issue:

In order that God the Word would become man it is not sufficient for him to put on humanity i.e. to be clothed with humanity. But the Word of God was incarnate and became Himself man while remaining God as He was. For example it is necessary for somebody in order to say “I am gold”, that he should have gold as his own nature through natural union. But if he only is wearing a ring of gold, he can never say “I am gold”. The Word of God incarnate said to the Jews: “me a man who has told you the truth” (John 8:40). This could never have been said unless He took our human nature and made it His own nature or His very own. Also we may notice that any human being can say I am flesh with reference to the body he owns and is united “according to nature” and “according to hypostasis” to his spirit.

Great quotation! Of course, we can talk a lot about the biblical term "flesh" and how it differs from or relates to the term "body", but this is not the place for that. This quote is great, but it contradicts your example of the incomplete book. As I said before, you give wrong examples, because your Christology is wrong.

Christ has all human qualities, therefore he is a man. And not because of the reason he is limited to man.

Christ has all human qualities (except sin), because He is Man 100% as a whole, as the One United Nature is 100% Divine-Human, and not 100% Divine PLUS 100% Human. There is no addition, but UNION.

After the incarnation, according to St.Cyril:

[The name] “Jesus” [was given to Him] because He would save the people, and “Christ” because for our sake He was anointed. And so [the apostle] calls both Jesus and Christ not the naked Word, as He was before the incarnation, which is from God the Father, but the Word manifested in the flesh (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Homilia Paschalis VIII // PG. 77. Col. 568)

I didn't ask you when He was called Christ. Our topic is not about when things or persons were called in practice the way they were called. Our topic is about when the Logos BECAME the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). I asked you when He was anointed. Your quote says nothing about the time of His anointing with the Holy Spirit. It says that He was anointed, but it doesn't say WHEN. So take another chance and try again:

When was the Logos anointed with the Holy Spirit?

When you think well about this question, you will understand why your Semi-Nestorian theory leads you to adoptionism...

 

[hedrick]

I have a concern about a united nature. A human being isn't just a collection of parts. The will chooses to do something, it goes hrough the nerves, muscles cause body parts to move. My understanding is that the Logos assumed a human, a concrete thing where all those parts function as a human, not a collection of human parts. Where in the miaphyscite model is that placed?

 

[Tigran1245]

Without addition. We do not have addition, but UNION. Jesus Christ is FULLY God and Man simultaneously.

No one disputes that Christ is full God and full man. But, it is not simple union, like soul or Godhead (opposite properties cannot exist in one simple thing), but composite union. Composite nature and hypostasis. Composition means that it is out of different things.

St.Cyril explaines what composition is:

The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. So, those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows that there must have been a mixture or confusion with the human nature being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish.

In your system it turns out that Christ is one simple natural thing, like photon or electron, which is from Divinity and humanity. Therefore it turns out that 100% Christ = 100% Divinity = 100% humanity. Saint Cyril in this quote condemns such a system, because there will be merging of opposite qualities, as I said earlier. We confess a composite union out of two things: simple Divinity and composite humanity. Composite humanity from a simple soul and a composite body. And so on.

No, we do not have consubstantiality, just as the body and the soul in man are not consubstantial and YET they have the same one united nature which is the human nature.

Body and soul are not the same nature, but they may be components of the same nature. Or they may not be part of human nature if the person died and the body became a separate hypostasis.

To say that the body has nature of man is as crazy as to say that the body has nature of galaxy. Indeed, the body is part of man, man is part of nature of family, the family is part of nature of state, the state is part of world society, the society is part of population of living organisms, life on planet is part of planet nature, planet is part of solar system, system is part of nature of galaxy. And you assert, according to your logic, that the body has the nature of the galaxy...

The body is human by nature though it is body by essence; the soul also is human by nature though it is soul by essence. The body does NOT change to soul by essence, nor does the soul turn to body by essence! Yet, they are both human by nature. So this does NOT mean that they are both of the same essence, but this DOES mean that they both have the one nature of the unity.

In the same way, the body and soul of Christ are Human by Essence (we use the term Essence instead of Nature to make the distinction in the Union), and the Logos is Divine by Essence, and yet by UNION in the One Person of the Logos we got a UNITED NATURE, and thus the body and soul of Christ are Divine-Human by Nature though only human by essence, and thus the Logos is Divine-Human by Nature though He is only Divine by Essence. The Second Hypostasis (Person) of the Trinity did not change. The body and soul do not turn to Divine by essence; the Logos does NOT turn to Human by essence. The Logos did NOT change in the Incarnation. There is no mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration, nor Transmutation of the two Essences.

Nowhere Armenian Fathers distinguish that there are 2 essence and 1 nature. They talk about both one essence and one nature, two natures and two essences. Your distinction of these terms is your invention.

You mean not by Essence, but by Nature. We both need to use the terms in the same sense so that we may understand each other: This is what we do in the work of reformation of the Church. The Nature is that Unity: we believe in ONE United Nature, unless you're a Chalcedonian but you don't like that name Chalcedonian... By that One United Nature God was able to suffer and die. The Chalcedonians do not believe in this One United Nature, and this is one of the main reasons why in the Trisagion they cannot say God suffered or died or rose from the dead. I wonder how it works for them to say the Virgin is Theotokos: Can the Divine Nature (they call It Nature=Physis, and not Essence) be born from a woman?! They answer "Hypostatic Union!" Well, okay...

You are not reforming the terms, but confusing the terms. The Fathers of the Armenian Church gave a precise system of how and in what words to speak about one nature. You are introducing confusion

You can never do anything by your body essence alone or your soul essence alone; you do everything by or according to your one human nature which is body-soul union. You cannot separate the two essences from each other, though you also distinguish them and you do not confuse them.

A person can die and will be only a soul, and will act only with a soul. And person is not human anymore, but only soul.

But note that, as I explained before, the body-soul union in human nature is used as an example for the possibility of such a union of two essences in one united nature in the case of the Logos, and NOT as an explanation of HOW the Union in Christ took place, because in the case of humans we do NOT have an incarnation of the soul in a body as it is in the case of the Incarnation of the Logos. When we were conceived in our mother's womb, there was not a person called the soul, who had a soul essence, and who came and united his soul essence to a body essence to form us. Mormons believe that the soul is incarnated, but I don't think you are a Mormon... New Agers and Druze believe in reincarnation, but I don't think you are a New Ager or Druze... So in this body-soul union example, body and soul are two essences, and the soul is NOT a preexistent person who united his essence to the body essence as it is in the case of the Logos. So soul and body in this example are both essences, NOT a person with a certain essence (the soul) being incarnated. This is why this example of body-soul union is NOT a complete or perfect explanation of the Union in the Incarnation, as our theologians explain, especially that the soul is separated from the body at death, while the Divine Essence is never separated from the Human Essence in Christ.

Of course, the soul and body are not an ideal example. For example, the body does not have the ability to will, but only the soul. Christ combines in himself two essential abilities to will, therefore, as a man, he is a slave, and as God, he is the Master.

Yes, what you just said is what I understood from what Pope Shenouda says, only by replacing "Natures" with "Essences" for clarification. I hope you also understand that Christ has ONE Nature, and stop talking about Him as two.

One nature does not cancel two natures. Both the Sun and the sky are two natures, but together they are one nature of the day. We can see and distinguish both the sun and the sky.

Yes! Having all the characteristics of both Essences FULLY, in all His Person, by Nature of the Unity, and not in parts as your theory says.

Any nature is a set of characteristics. And the united nature is a set of two sets of characteristics.

This is why your example of the pig organ (transplanted) is wrong, because the Logos became flesh; He didn't just add a human transplant.

He took flesh and connected it with Divinity. So Person has or is full divinity and full humanity.

Great quotation! Of course, we can talk a lot about the biblical term "flesh" and how it differs from or relates to the term "body", but this is not the place for that. This quote is great, but it contradicts your example of the incomplete book. As I said before, you give wrong examples, because your Christology is wrong.

The book is an example about Person, but here we are talking about substance.

Metropolitan Bishoy clearly says that you are completely what is your natural part. And he relates this example to Christology.

Christ has all human qualities (except sin), because He is Man 100% as a whole, as the One United Nature is 100% Divine-Human, and not 100% Divine PLUS 100% Human. There is no addition, but UNION.

There can be no union without addition.

Your quote says nothing about the time of His anointing with the Holy Spirit. It says that He was anointed, but it doesn't say WHEN.

It says.

“Christ” because for our sake He was anointed.

Everything for our sake is temporal. Christ as man was anointed by the Holy Spirit and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Hence the name Christ.

One more quote:

Christ Jesus is considered not the naked and Word of God in Himself, but when He assumed humanity and intertwined with the flesh (Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten)

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

No one disputes that Christ is full God and full man. But, it is not simple union, like soul or Godhead (opposite properties cannot exist in one simple thing), but composite union. Composite nature and hypostasis. Composition means that it is out of different things.

Yes, but it is UNION, not addition.

St.Cyril explaines what composition is:

The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. So, those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows that there must have been a mixture or confusion with the human nature being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish.

You see? What you say is rubbish according to Cyril. I am not mixing, nor confusing the Essences.

In your system it turns out that Christ is one simple natural thing, like photon or electron, which is from Divinity and humanity. Therefore it turns out that 100% Christ = 100% Divinity = 100% humanity.

Yes, 100% of the human body is human by nature, and 100% of the human soul is human by nature. The human nature is composite, not simple, yet not an addition of two essences, but union.

Saint Cyril in this quote condemns such a system, because there will be merging of opposite qualities, as I said earlier. We confess a composite union out of two things: simple Divinity and composite humanity. Composite humanity from a simple soul and a composite body. And so on.

Cyril condemns Nestorianism and your Semi-Nestorianism.

Body and soul are not the same nature, but they may be components of the same nature.

You see how you believe in addition, not union? You just confessed it! That's Semi-Nestorianism.

The human body and the human soul have the same human nature, though not the same essence.

Or they may not be part of human nature if the person died and the body became a separate hypostasis.

Whether the person is alive or dead, the human body is human body, and the human soul is human soul.

To say that the body has nature of man is as crazy as to say that the body has nature of galaxy.

Says who?

Indeed, the body is part of man, man is part of nature of family, the family is part of nature of state, the state is part of world society, the society is part of population of living organisms, life on planet is part of planet nature, planet is part of solar system, system is part of nature of galaxy. And you assert, according to your logic, that the body has the nature of the galaxy...

We are talking about nature and essence, and you're talking about family and state and world society, etc... May the Lord have mercy!

Nowhere Armenian Fathers distinguish that there are 2 essence and 1 nature. They talk about both one essence and one nature, two natures and two essences. Your distinction of these terms is your invention.

My distinction is a reformation in order to avoid the confusion that is found both among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. Our usage of the terms should be reformed in order to avoid the confusion. I guess you know that the original confusion was mainly caused by the different understandings of the terms in the Christological controversy.

The Armenian Fathers distinguished the nature and the unity. You yourself quoted sayings where the nature of Christ's body is human yet the body is Divine by unity, not by nature. This "by unity" is what I am explaining by reforming the used terms.

You are not reforming the terms, but confusing the terms. The Fathers of the Armenian Church gave a precise system of how and in what words to speak about one nature. You are introducing confusion

Presently, there is confusion, because, as we saw at the beginning of our discussion, the Copts are saying something, while the Armenians and Syriacs are saying something else. For instance, Pope Shenouda said Christ has one will, while you disagree with him... Coptic official websites explain that Christ is the Second Ouqnoum (Hypostasis) of the Trinity, so they do not use Hypostasis in the sense of Essence as Cyril did, while Armenian Fathers use Hypostasis in the way Cyril used it. So confusion is everywhere, among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. And you say that it is me who am introducing confusion by reforming the usage of the terms?... May the Lord have mercy!

A person can die and will be only a soul, and will act only with a soul. And person is not human anymore, but only soul.

First, this shows how the body-soul union cannot fully give the sense of the Natural Union in Christ.

Second, when Jesus died, His soul ceased to be Human? When He proclaimed His victory in Hadys, He was what? Only Divine?

Of course, the soul and body are not an ideal example. For example, the body does not have the ability to will, but only the soul. Christ combines in himself two essential abilities to will, therefore, as a man, he is a slave, and as God, he is the Master.

Thanks for admitting this.

One nature does not cancel two natures. Both the Sun and the sky are two natures, but together they are one nature of the day. We can see and distinguish both the sun and the sky.

Does not cancel two Essences, not two Natures. Christ has ONE Nature, unless you prefer to be Chalcedonian.

Any nature is a set of characteristics. And the united nature is a set of two sets of characteristics.

Not addition, but union.

He took flesh and connected it with Divinity. So Person has or is full divinity and full humanity.

Not addition, but Union.

The book is an example about Person, but here we are talking about substance.

So wrong example.

Metropolitan Bishoy clearly says that you are completely what is your natural part. And he relates this example to Christology.

We have seen what he says. You may try to make him say whatever you want, but what he says does not change.

There can be no union without addition.

See? You believe in addition, not union... You are Semi-Nestorian. Nestorians have deceived you by their apologetics.

It says.

“Christ” because for our sake He was anointed.

Everything for our sake is temporal. Christ as man was anointed by the Holy Spirit and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Hence the name Christ.

One more quote:

Christ Jesus is considered not the naked and Word of God in Himself, but when He assumed humanity and intertwined with the flesh (Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten)

So before the Incarnation, the Son was not anointed by the Holy Spirit, right? Affirm that this is what you're saying, please.

 

[Tigran1245]

You see? What you say is rubbish according to Cyril. I am not mixing, nor confusing the Essences.

You say that two essences become one and the same nature. It is consubstantiobility. According to you, Christ has one nature with Father and the same nature with us. So, you made us one nature with Father.

Yes, 100% of the human body is human by nature, and 100% of the human soul is human by nature. The human nature is composite, not simple, yet not an addition of two essences, but union.

Well, I also say that the Divine and humanity are connected as the soul with the body (if we do not take into account soul-body separation or process of incarnation).

Cyril condemns Nestorianism and your Semi-Nestorianism.

Cyril of Alexandria condemns the simple nature that you confess.

You see how you believe in addition, not union? You just confessed it! That's Semi-Nestorianism.

I believe in orthodox faith that nature of Christ is not simple, but composit=out of components.

According to Coptic Father Shenouda Ishak in his book “Christology and Council of Chalcedon” mixing parts or components is Eutichianism:

Real monophysism maintained that the union, in Christ, of the two natures into one had come about by alteration of the component parts: some of these monophysites maintained that Christ’s body had been apparent or of heavenly origin, others that his body had been absorbed by his divinity as a drop of honey dissolved in the sea, others that the divinity of the Logos had been annihilated in his humanity, yet others that humanity and divinity had mixed to form a composite, partly human and partly divine. All these forms of real monophysism have been labeled as Eutychianism, since Eutyches was considered, more wrongly than rightly, as having admitted alteration of the human nature in the union.

Orthodox Faith is about confessing components without mixing and changing as one nature together=in union.

Coptic Father Peter Farmington in his book “Orthodox Christology”:

And this humanity was united to the divinity according to his analogy as the immaterial component of our humanity is united to the material, without confusion, mixture or blending. Each remaining what it always is.

We are talking about nature and essence, and you're talking about family and state and world society, etc... May the Lord have mercy!

I am talking about essence of state, family and so on. Human essence - part of these essences. So, according to you, human body should have nature of state or family.

My distinction is a reformation in order to avoid the confusion that is found both among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. Our usage of the terms should be reformed in order to avoid the confusion. I guess you know that the original confusion was mainly caused by the different understandings of the terms in the Christological controversy.

The Armenian Fathers distinguished the nature and the unity. You yourself quoted sayings where the nature of Christ's body is human yet the body is Divine by unity, not by nature. This "by unity" is what I am explaining by reforming the used terms.

Presently, there is confusion, because, as we saw at the beginning of our discussion, the Copts are saying something, while the Armenians and Syriacs are saying something else. For instance, Pope Shenouda said Christ has one will, while you disagree with him... Coptic official websites explain that Christ is the Second Ouqnoum (Hypostasis) of the Trinity, so they do not use Hypostasis in the sense of Essence as Cyril did, while Armenian Fathers use Hypostasis in the way Cyril used it. So confusion is everywhere, among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. And you say that it is me who am introducing confusion by reforming the usage of the terms?... May the Lord have mercy!

There is no confusion with what Shenouda said. He is talking about the result of the will, not about the ability of the will. And there is no confusion in the theology of nature.

There is confusion in the theology of person/hypostasis. There are already 3 different opinions there. For example, just 2 days ago a book was published in Russian by one of our priests, where it is proven that the Armenian Church generally rejects the Greek hypostasis and andz is a personality, not hypostasis. And the priest criticizes the translation of Khosrovik the Interpreter, where andz was translated as hypostasis. This is the direction in which we need to investigate.

Second, when Jesus died, His soul ceased to be Human? When He proclaimed His victory in Hadys, He was what? Only Divine?

Jesus did not cease to be a man, because the body remained in unity with the Divine. But I agree with Thomas of Aquinas that if we had received communion at the time of Christ's death, the soul of Christ would not have accompanied the Body, Blood and Divinity.

So before the Incarnation, the Son was not anointed by the Holy Spirit, right? Affirm that this is what you're saying, please.

He was not anointed by the Holy Spirit as man before incarnation. Christ is about anointing the humanity.

 

[Tigran1245]

Yes, but it is UNION, not addition.

You see? What you say is rubbish according to Cyril. I am not mixing, nor confusing the Essences.

Yes, 100% of the human body is human by nature, and 100% of the human soul is human by nature. The human nature is composite, not simple, yet not an addition of two essences, but union.

Cyril condemns Nestorianism and your Semi-Nestorianism.

You see how you believe in addition, not union? You just confessed it! That's Semi-Nestorianism.

The human body and the human soul have the same human nature, though not the same essence.

Whether the person is alive or dead, the human body is human body, and the human soul is human soul.

Says who?

We are talking about nature and essence, and you're talking about family and state and world society, etc... May the Lord have mercy!

My distinction is a reformation in order to avoid the confusion that is found both among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. Our usage of the terms should be reformed in order to avoid the confusion. I guess you know that the original confusion was mainly caused by the different understandings of the terms in the Christological controversy.

The Armenian Fathers distinguished the nature and the unity. You yourself quoted sayings where the nature of Christ's body is human yet the body is Divine by unity, not by nature. This "by unity" is what I am explaining by reforming the used terms.

Presently, there is confusion, because, as we saw at the beginning of our discussion, the Copts are saying something, while the Armenians and Syriacs are saying something else. For instance, Pope Shenouda said Christ has one will, while you disagree with him... Coptic official websites explain that Christ is the Second Ouqnoum (Hypostasis) of the Trinity, so they do not use Hypostasis in the sense of Essence as Cyril did, while Armenian Fathers use Hypostasis in the way Cyril used it. So confusion is everywhere, among Miaphysites themselves and among Miaphysites and Diophysites. And you say that it is me who am introducing confusion by reforming the usage of the terms?... May the Lord have mercy!

First, this shows how the body-soul union cannot fully give the sense of the Natural Union in Christ.

Second, when Jesus died, His soul ceased to be Human? When He proclaimed His victory in Hadys, He was what? Only Divine?

Thanks for admitting this.

Does not cancel two Essences, not two Natures. Christ has ONE Nature, unless you prefer to be Chalcedonian.

Not addition, but union.

Not addition, but Union.

So wrong example.

We have seen what he says. You may try to make him say whatever you want, but what he says does not change.

See? You believe in addition, not union... You are Semi-Nestorian. Nestorians have deceived you by their apologetics.


So before the Incarnation, the Son was not anointed by the Holy Spirit, right? Affirm that this is what you're saying, please.

We can say that:

100%Person = 100%Divinity
100%Person = 100%Humanity
100%Person = 100%Divinity+100%Humanity

Person is indivisible. Therefore, the Person of Christ is fully God, fully man, fully God-man. Therefore, we say that God is man. It is absolutely logical, if you think about it.

But this option is heretical:

100%Divinity=100%Humanity=100%God-humanity

I found a good quote from Grigor Tatevatsi that refutes this misconception.

Divinity and humanity are not similar to each other and are not applicable to the whole

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

You say that two essences become one and the same nature. It is consubstantiobility. According to you, Christ has one nature with Father and the same nature with us. So, you made us one nature with Father.

No, I, with the Confession of the Orthodox Faith, we say that Christ has two Essences UNITED in ONE Nature, not added. So the two Essences are NOT confused or mixed or changed, but they are united, not added.

So according to Cyril, you are saying rubbish when you accuse us, Miaphysites.

Well, I also say that the Divine and humanity are connected as the soul with the body (if we do not take into account soul-body separation or process of incarnation).

Yet the Incarnation is super important as a difference, because in the case of Incarnation we have a preexistent Person.

Cyril of Alexandria condemns the simple nature that you confess.

And yet I believe in UNITED Nature, not simple. But Nestorians and Semi-Nestorians like you want to make it seem like I am saying simple nature.

I believe in orthodox faith that nature of Christ is not simple, but composit=out of components.

You believe in the Semi-Nestorian heresy of addition of the Essences. You deny the real Union.

According to Coptic Father Shenouda Ishak in his book “Christology and Council of Chalcedon” mixing parts or components is Eutichianism:

Real monophysism maintained that the union, in Christ, of the two natures into one had come about by alteration of the component parts: some of these monophysites maintained that Christ’s body had been apparent or of heavenly origin, others that his body had been absorbed by his divinity as a drop of honey dissolved in the sea, others that the divinity of the Logos had been annihilated in his humanity, yet others that humanity and divinity had mixed to form a composite, partly human and partly divine. All these forms of real monophysism have been labeled as Eutychianism, since Eutyches was considered, more wrongly than rightly, as having admitted alteration of the human nature in the union.

Orthodox Faith is about confessing components without mixing and changing as one nature together=in union.

Coptic Father Peter Farmington in his book “Orthodox Christology”:

And this humanity was united to the divinity according to his analogy as the immaterial component of our humanity is united to the material, without confusion, mixture or blending. Each remaining what it always is.

Yes, mixing the components is Eutychianism. Adding the components is either Nestorianism or Semi-Nestorianism. Uniting the component Essences is orthodox.

I am talking about essence of state, family and so on. Human essence - part of these essences. So, according to you, human body should have nature of state or family.

These are not one Person like Christ. May the Lord have mercy and open your mind to see your error!

There is no confusion with what Shenouda said. He is talking about the result of the will, not about the ability of the will. And there is no confusion in the theology of nature.

Yes, we are not monothelites, but you can call us Miathelites. You are Dyothelite.

There is confusion in the theology of person/hypostasis. There are already 3 different opinions there. For example, just 2 days ago a book was published in Russian by one of our priests, where it is proven that the Armenian Church generally rejects the Greek hypostasis and andz is a personality, not hypostasis. And the priest criticizes the translation of Khosrovik the Interpreter, where andz was translated as hypostasis. This is the direction in which we need to investigate.

I already gave my opinion as to the reforming of the usage of Hypostasis among us, Miaphysites.

Jesus did not cease to be a man, because the body remained in unity with the Divine. But I agree with Thomas of Aquinas that if we had received communion at the time of Christ's death, the soul of Christ would not have accompanied the Body, Blood and Divinity.

So when a person dies, his nature or the nature of his body and soul are not changed, contrary to what you said.

He was not anointed by the Holy Spirit as man before incarnation. Christ is about anointing the humanity.

Great! So as Man, He was anointed at His Incarnation, but He is anointed from eternity as the Son of God, by eternal Generation from the Father. Thus the same Person is the Anointed One (Christ) from eternity. Unless for you, Semi-Nestorians, the Man Jesus Christ is another person...