The more I read about the explanations of the two stances, the more it seems like semantics to me.
1. Christ is 100% consubstantial with both God and man, having divine will, energies, nature, and so on, and having human will, soul, energies, nature, mind and so on.
2. The Word became flesh, and so it is right to speak of God being born, God suffering, God being buried, and God being Resurrected.
I think we can all agree on these points, and if any formula is understood to be an expression of them, then how can there be any problem?
1. Christ is 100% consubstantial with both God and man, having divine will, energies, nature, and so on, and having human will, soul, energies, nature, mind and so on.
2. The Word became flesh, and so it is right to speak of God being born, God suffering, God being buried, and God being Resurrected.
I think we can all agree on these points, and if any formula is understood to be an expression of them, then how can there be any problem?
