Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, exactly this one. Nestorius wrote to Cyril:Is this the reason why Nestorius refused to call the Blessed Virgin "Theotokos" when asked by Cyril of Alexandria?
So the Blessed Theotokos bore the Human Hypostasis? According to you, she was called "Theo tokos" (God-bearer) only because of the interchange of names, because we just attribute to the Hypostasis of the flesh what belongs to the Hypostasis of the Word?Yes, exactly this one. Nestorius wrote to Cyril:
In the Holy Scripture, wherever it speaks of the divine dispensation, it conveys to us the birth and suffering of human nature in Christ, and not divine. And therefore the most correct name for the Holy Virgin should not be the Theotokos, but the Christotokos.
Saint Cyril in his "Word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God" writes:So the Blessed Theotokos bore the Human Hypostasis? According to you, she was called "Theo tokos" (God-bearer) only because of the interchange of names, because we just attribute to the Hypostasis of the flesh what belongs to the Hypostasis of the Word?
Let me understand this well:But the main reason, of course, is that Christ is not a new man and not a union of two Persons, but one eternal divine Person of God the Word. That is why St. Mary is called the Mother of God.
πρόσωπονLet me understand this well:
Tell me the Greek term for "Person" in the following clause: "one eternal divine Person of God the Word".
Okay, so I understand the following:πρόσωπον
The Person of Christ is Divine-human after the union, but this is not a united Person, but the same Person that was before the incarnation. The same Son.Okay, so I understand the following:
You believe that God is Three Prosopa, each with His own Hypostasis, and that the Prosopon of the Son united two Hypostasis in His one Prosopon. So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin.
Did I get you right?
We said we will leave aside the discussions about the Hypostasis as discussed in the context of the Chalcedonian controversy, because it will not be helpful given the fact that there were different definitions and usages for it. So let's concentrate on your issue with Nestorianism and with our Christology.The Person of Christ is Divine-human after the union, but this is not a united Person, but the same Person that was before the incarnation. The same Son.
So, single Person, united hypostases and nature.
God is three hypostases, each having a Person.So till now I learned from you that what you believe is this:
God is Trinity = God is Three Prosopa. (You didn't clarify yet if He is also Three Hypostases).
The person was Divine, became God-human. But this does not mean that it has changed. The Person of the Son had only a divine nature, and the same Person without change began to have a God-human nature from two natures.After the union (you still didn't clarify the union of whom or what with whom or what), one Prosopon in the Trinity is not only Divine anymore, but also Human by union, so this Prosopon is Divine-Human. So this Prospon changed its Nature: This Nature is not just Divine anymore, but It became a composite Nature. The Prosopon of the Son changed.
"So no human Prosopon was born from the Virgin."
We can say that the Deity was born of the Virgin only by union with the flesh, and not by the properties of the Deity. Literally, the Deity was not born of the Virgin.And I understood also that the Virgin didn't bear the the Divine Nature or Hypostasis. Did I get this right?
Can a Hypostasis exist without a Prosopon?God is three hypostases, each having a Person.
The Person's Nature and Hypostasis changed. So the Person has become another Person.The person was Divine, became God-human. But this does not mean that it has changed. The Person of the Son had only a divine nature, and the same Person without change began to have a God-human nature from two natures.
Thus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, not a new Son or a mixture of two sons. The Person is the same.
So the Divine Word was not born from the Virgin as a human? So the blood of Jesus is not really the blood of God, but only by union and in moral value?We can say that the Deity was born of the Virgin only by union with the flesh, and not by the properties of the Deity. Literally, the Deity was not born of the Virgin.
Yes. For example, a stone, a tree, a dog - hypostases without Person.Can a Hypostasis exist without a Prosopon?
No. If John's finger was cut off, his hypostasis would change. But his nature and Person would not change. John wouldn’t become another Person.The Person's Nature and Hypostasis changed. So the Person has become another Person.
Word was born as human but not as Divine Word itself.So the Divine Word was not born from the Virgin as a human? So the blood of Jesus is not really the blood of God, but only by union and in moral value?
Good. So in the Trinity, the Hypostases have Personhood. Now, if we concentrate on the Hypostasis of the Son: what happened at His Incarnation?Yes. For example, a stone, a tree, a dog - hypostases without Person.
So the Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is still only Divine after the Incarnation? And His Hypostasis is still only single?No. If John's finger was cut off, his hypostasis would change. But his nature and Person would not change. John wouldn’t become another Person.
So only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?Word was born as human but not as Divine Word itself.
So this Blood does not have an eternal value in itself? Its value is only moral, by union to the Divine Nature that is eternal in value?Jesus Blood is God, but not by blood’s nature, but by unification with Word.
But why is the Humanity of Christ mortal if He is not sinful? Didn't death enter with sin?St. Gregory of Tatev:
“As we say the body of Christ is God and is also divine because of the unification with God, similarly, [His] blood is God and is divine blood, and other [parts] likewise.”
“And since the Word became body by unification, then it is evident that the body of the Word became Word by the same unification. Then, therefore, the same body of Christ is God”
“Word is immortal in its nature, and the same becomes mortal by unification; as also humanity becomes immortal by unification, and is mortal in its [natural] property.”
The Divine hypostasis of the Word grew flesh in union with itself without any changing and became the God-human hypostasis of the incarnate Word from two: the Word and the flesh.Good. So in the Trinity, the Hypostases have Personhood. Now, if we concentrate on the Hypostasis of the Son: what happened at His Incarnation?
No, Divine and human.So the Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is still only Divine after the Incarnation
No. Hypostases is not single, but united, composite after the union.And His Hypostasis is still only single?
Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature.So only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?
Without the union with the Word, the blood would be no different from our blood. And there will be no incarnation.So this Blood does not have an eternal value in itself? Its value is only moral, by union to the Divine Nature that is eternal in value?
With sin came forced death and forced passions. But voluntary passions existed before the fall.But why is the Humanity of Christ mortal if He is not sinful? Didn't death enter with sin?
So the flesh is another hypostasis? The Word just got united to flesh? He did not become flesh?The Divine hypostasis of the Word grew flesh in union with itself without any changing and became the God-human hypostasis of the incarnate Word from two: the Word and the flesh.
So the Person of the Son changed His Nature; previously, He was only Divine by Nature, and now He is Divine AND Human by Nature.No, Divine and human.
So we have like an additional Hypostasis united to the Trinity?No. Hypostases is not single, but united, composite after the union.
Sorry, I didn't understand. For instance, what does "God of Word" mean?Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature.
So the Word just got united to flesh? He was not incarnated? He did not become flesh?Without the union with the Word, the blood would be no different from our blood. And there will be no incarnation.
Okay. I will forget about this for this thread. I think it will take us off topic.With sin came forced death and forced passions. But voluntary passions existed before the fall.
He did not become flesh in the sense of being transformed into flesh. This is the heresy of Eutyches.So the flesh is another hypostasis? The Word just got united to flesh? He did not become flesh?So the Word just got united to flesh? He was not incarnated? He did not become flesh?
Word has in his nature 100% human nature, but nature of Word is not on 100% human. Divinity is not human by nature and humanity is not divine by nature.I mean, I need to know this: Is the Word now 100% Human by Nature?
But Divine nature wasn’t changed.So the Person of the Son changed His Nature; previously, He was only Divine by Nature, and now He is Divine AND Human by Nature.
We don‘t Have separate human hypostasis in Trinity. One God-human hypostasis of Son.So we have like an additional Hypostasis united to the Trinity?
Hypostasis of God of Word - individualised divine nature. Hypostases of Word = divine nature + individual divine property “born from Father”.Sorry, I didn't understand. For instance, what does "God of Word" mean?
I answer again. Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature. Only this answer os Orthodox. Jesus was born only by human nature, not divine nature.I had asked a simple question:
Only the Human Nature of Christ was born from the Virgin?
Okay, so let's consider you the teacher: So Eutyches taught that the Divine Nature became flesh? The error of Monophysitism is that it teaches the Divine Nature became Human Nature? Not that the Human Nature was deified?He did not become flesh in the sense of being transformed into flesh. This is the heresy of Eutyches.
He who? The Hypostasis (the Son)? He just united Himself to flesh? He did not become flesh?He became flesh because he united with flesh and made flesh His instrument. Only in this sense.
Again, I didn't understand. But whatever... Seems you will not be able to clarify your point.God of Word - musician. Flesh - instrument. And they are not separated, but one hypostasis, person and nature.
So per your teaching, the Word is NOT 100% Human by Nature; He only HAS a 100% Human Nature in His composite Nature, and thus He is a 200%: 100% Human and ANOTHER 100% Divine. This is heresy. This is actually the problem with Nestorianism.Word has in his nature 100% human nature, but nature of Word is not on 100% human. Divinity is not human by nature and humanity is not divine by nature.
Per your theory, it did.But Divine nature wasn’t changed.
Per your theory, we have a human hypostasis UNITED to the Hypostasis of the Word. But a fourth hypostasis nonetheless, because, as you insisted at the beginning of our discussions, we should never annul any of the Hypostases or Natures.We don‘t Have separate human hypostasis in Trinity. One God-human hypostasis of Son.
Nice. But I couldn't understand again. Maybe it's me...Hypostasis of God of Word - individualised divine nature. Hypostases of Word = divine nature + individual divine property “born from Father”.
I prefer the really orthodox Confession of the Orthodox Faith which I quoted above. It is very clear.I answer again. Humanity was born by human nature, not unification. God of Word was born by unification, not His nature. Only this answer os Orthodox. Jesus was born only by human nature, not divine nature.
Yes, teaching that Divine nature became or changed into human nature is heresy of Monophysitism: two natures change, and Christ is no longer man and no longer God, but a third nature.Okay, so let's consider you the teacher: So Eutyches taught that the Divine Nature became flesh? The error of Monophysitism is that it teaches the Divine Nature became Human Nature?
Deification of human nature is Orthodox teaching. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites recognize it.Not that the Human Nature was deified?
He became flesh because Word united with flesh in its Person, not turn into flesh.He who? The Hypostasis (the Son)? He just united Himself to flesh? He did not become flesh?
Unfortunately, I don't know Armenian very well. But I will say that different Armenian Fathers have different terminology.You surely know Armenian. Let's read from our Confession of the Orthodox Faith:
"Հաւատամք զմինն յերից Անձանց [Armenian equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] զԲանն Աստուած` ծնեալ ի Հօրէ նախ քան զյաւիտեանս. ի ժամանակի իջեալ յԱստուածածին կոյսն Մարիամ, առեալ յարենէ նորա` միաւորեաց ընդ իւրում Աստուածութեանն [The Second Hypostasis took from the flesh of the Virgin and united it to His Divinity; He didn't unite Himself to the flesh, but He united the flesh taken from the Virgin to His Divinity!], իննամսեայ ժուժկալեալ յարգանդի անարատ կուսին. և եղև Աստուածն կատարեալ` մարդ կատարեալ հոգւով և մտօք և մարմնով [the Perfect God became perfect Man in spirit and mind and body]. մի անձն [equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis], մի դէմ [equivalent of the Greek Prosopon] և միաւորեալ մի Բնութիւն [one united Physis]: Աստուածն մարդացեալ առանց փոփոխման և առանց այլայլութեան. անսերմն յղութիւն և անապական ծնունդ. որպէս ոչ է սկիզբն Աստուածութեան նորա` և ոչ վախճան մարդկութեան նորա, (զի Յիսուս Քրիստոս երէկ և այսօր` նոյն և յաւիտեան):"
Divinity and Humanity are parts of Christ. 100% of Christ is not divine, 100% of Christ is not human. If you disagree, you will have 200% Christ. And it is 2 Christs. Nestorianism.So per your teaching, the Word is NOT 100% Human by Nature; He only HAS a 100% Human Nature in His composite Nature, and thus He is a 200%: 100% Human and ANOTHER 100% Divine. This is heresy. This is actually the problem with Nestorianism.
Virgin bore Divine Person. And after this Person is called human too.And you still didn't tell me if the Virgin bore the Divine Person. I still couldn't understand if you believe the Divine Person was really born! This was the main issue with Nestorius. Is the Virgin Theotokos? Was the Divine Person really born, or He just united Himself to a hypostasis that was born from the Virgin? This makes the whole difference.
There is no fourth hypostasis. The Nestorians received four hypostases because they did not unite the hypostases of the Word and the flesh. We confess the one united hypostasis of Christ. And the Divine Logos in this hypostasis did not change, i.e. the Deity did not change.Per your theory, we have a human hypostasis UNITED to the Hypostasis of the Word. But a fourth hypostasis nonetheless, because, as you insisted at the beginning of our discussions, we should never annul any of the Hypostases or Natures.
But not the heresy of Eutyches. A teacher like you should be careful to be precise.Yes, teaching that Divine nature became or changed into human nature is heresy of Monophysitism: two natures change, and Christ is no longer man and no longer God, but a third nature.
No. The Human Nature of Christ did not change: No mixing, no mingling, no change, no trasubstantiation.Deification of human nature is Orthodox teaching. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites recognize it.
No, the Word became flesh, as we have seen in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith; He didn't just unite to flesh. The confessions of the Church are clear.He became flesh because Word united with flesh in its Person, not turn into flesh.
What I quoted is the official Confession that we use in the Armenian Apostolic Church, not just a terminology of a Father.Unfortunately, I don't know Armenian very well. But I will say that different Armenian Fathers have different terminology.
The Confession is clear: Անձ is Hypostasis, Դէմ is literally Prosopon (Face). Ենթադրութիւն is not even mentioned in the whole Confession.You quote the Creed of Grigor Tatevatsi. Grigor Tatevatsi gives definitions of his terms in “Book of Questions”.
View attachment 362766
To my mind, անձ - Person and ենթադրութիւն - Hypostasis. And Vatche Ghazarian translates անձ as person in his translation of “Book of Questions“ into English.
The same thing writes scholar Khachik Grigorian about Gregory of Tatev:
View attachment 362767
So in the Creed I don’t see Hypostasis but only Person.
Christ is 100% Divine and 100% Human in ONE united Nature, so He is 100% God-Man. He is ONE Christ, the Incarnated Second Hypostasis of the Trinity.Divinity and Humanity are parts of Christ. 100% of Christ is not divine, 100% of Christ is not human. If you disagree, you will have 200% Christ. And it is 2 Christs. Nestorianism.
Good. So the Divine PERSON was born of Mary, and not just a human Hypostasis. So the Divine Person became flesh.Virgin bore Divine Person. And after this Person is called human too.
Nestorians also say the human hypostasis is united to the Divine Hypostasis in one Prosopon, but they do not form one united Hypostasis. The whole difference is semantic: you just say they are one, yet they both still exist. So you have two Christs: one Divine and another human. And thus the Trinity added a fourth hypostasis that is 100% human...There is no fourth hypostasis. The Nestorians received four hypostases because they did not unite the hypostases of the Word and the flesh. We confess the one united hypostasis of Christ. And the Divine Logos in this hypostasis did not change, i.e. the Deity did not change.
Christ's nature was completely deified and became incorruptible, not corruptible like our nature. Christ in his nature did not have the consequences of original sin.No. The Human Nature of Christ did not change: No mixing, no mingling, no change, no trasubstantiation.
Turning divinity into flesh is heresy. When Fathers are talking about Word becoming flesh, it means that Word united with flesh and make this flesh His flesh.No, the Word became flesh, as we have seen in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith; He didn't just unite to flesh. The confessions of the Church are clear.
This is the personal Symbol of Saint Tatevatsi, which was accepted by our Church. We must analyze terminology of St. Gregory, not our fantasies.What I quoted is the official Confession that we use in the Armenian Apostolic Church, not just a terminology of a Father.
Անձ is Person both in russian and in English translations of the Creed I found.The Confession is clear: Անձ is Hypostasis, Դէմ is literally Prosopon (Face). Ենթադրութիւն is not even mentioned in the whole Confession.
You have very big problems with Math.According to your theory, Divinity and Humanity are two 100% parts of Christ, so Christ is 200%. This is Nestorianism.
Yes, Devine Person became fleshGood. So the Divine PERSON was born of Mary, and not just a human Hypostasis. So the Divine Person became flesh.
If we confess two separate hypostases, the deification of Christ's humanity will be impossible. And only man will die on the cross, not God incarnate. It will also be impossible to say that God died on the Cross.Nestorians also say the human hypostasis is united to the Divine Hypostasis in one Prosopon, but they do not form one united Hypostasis. The whole difference is semantic: you just say they are one, yet they both still exist.
Christ's Human Essence was NOT deified. That's Eutychianism.Christ's nature was completely deified and became incorruptible, not corruptible like our nature. Christ in his nature did not have the consequences of original sin.
Yes, turning the Divine Essence to flesh is heresy. It is the Word that became flesh by uniting Human Essence to His Divine Essence.Turning divinity into flesh is heresy. When Fathers are talking about Word becoming flesh, it means that Word united with flesh and make this flesh His flesh.
No, this is not a personal confession, but the Confession of the Orthodox Faith. It agrees perfectly with what Pope Shnouda III teaches in his book "The Nature of Christ", because this is the Orthodox Miaphysite formulation.This is the personal Symbol of Saint Tatevatsi, which was accepted by our Church. We must analyze terminology of St. Gregory, not our fantasies.
Yes, just as Hypostasis for the Trinity is Persona in Latin and Person in English and Անձ in Armenian. This is how consistency works.Անձ is Person both in russian and in English translations of the Creed I found.
Yes, Countenance is a good way to translate the Greek Prosopon (Face). In Classical Armenian (Grabar or Krapar) it's Դէմ. In Modern Armenian it's Դէմք.Դէմ is Countenance
View attachment 362780
St. Gregory of Tatev’s Confession of Faith
The following is the confession of faith, or explanation of the Creed of St. Gregory of Tatev (1346-1409). He was an Armenian Orthodox monk and theologian who fought against the attempted incursion…polishmiaphysite.wordpress.com
Yes, I am an ignorant, that's why I need to learn from you. I am thankful that you are humble enough to teach me without mocking.You have very big problems with Math.
Yes, in your theory Christ is not 100% Human. In your theory, z is not 100% human, so He is not 100% like us except sin. And in your theory z is not 100% Divine, 100% the same Logos who was before His Incarnation (Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever). Before the Incarnation, Christ was 100% Divine, the whole Person (Hypostasis) of Christ was Divine. Z was 100%x. In your theory, suddenly, when He was incarnated, z ceased to be 100%x; He changed. In your theory, Christ became 100%x PLUS 100%y; so He became a 200% Person = Nestorianism.100%*x+100%*y=100%*z
1*x+1*y=1*z
x+y=z ✅
x - humanity, y - divinity, z - Christ
The whole Person, yes. The whole Nature of this Person is now 100% flesh without ceasing to be 100% Divine. It is a UNITED Nature, not two Natures that are added to each other, walking side by side). The Logos is PERFECT in His Divinity and PERFECT in His Humanity. He is perfectly Divine and perfectly Human. He didn't change. Before the Incarnation, the whole of the Logos was 100% Divine; after the Incarnation, the whole of the Logos is still 100% Divine. He didn't change.Yes, Devine Person became flesh
It is not the Human Nature that died on the cross, but Christ (the one Person, i.e. the one Hypostasis). If the One who died on the cross were not Human like us in all His Person, then He wouldn't be able to represent us. And if the One who died on the cross were not Divine in all His Person, then He would not be able to atone for our sins and rise from the dead victorious.If we confess two separate hypostases, the deification of Christ's humanity will be impossible. And only man will die on the cross, not God incarnate. It will also be impossible to say that God died on the Cross.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?