Talk:Hypostatic union

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: Is it really theologically correct to say that Jesus Christ "subsists in two natures"? I know that this is actually not what the Chalcedonian Creed said. It said rather "recognized in two ...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Subsist ==
 
Is it really theologically correct to say that Jesus Christ "subsists in two natures"? I know that this is actually not what the Chalcedonian Creed said. It said rather "recognized in two natures". The Second Council of Constantinople later explained that this was not the introduction of a concrete twoness in Christ but rather theoretical and speculative recognition of the continuation of his full humanity and full divinity. How is it thus that the aforementioned phrase can be justified? How is it any different from saying, as the Nestorians, that Jesus Christ is one person (''prosopon'') in two concrete individuated existential realities (''hypostases''), especially given that "subsistence" is a common translation for "''hypostasis''"? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 01:44, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
 
Is it really theologically correct to say that Jesus Christ "subsists in two natures"? I know that this is actually not what the Chalcedonian Creed said. It said rather "recognized in two natures". The Second Council of Constantinople later explained that this was not the introduction of a concrete twoness in Christ but rather theoretical and speculative recognition of the continuation of his full humanity and full divinity. How is it thus that the aforementioned phrase can be justified? How is it any different from saying, as the Nestorians, that Jesus Christ is one person (''prosopon'') in two concrete individuated existential realities (''hypostases''), especially given that "subsistence" is a common translation for "''hypostasis''"? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 01:44, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:54, March 8, 2009

Subsist

Is it really theologically correct to say that Jesus Christ "subsists in two natures"? I know that this is actually not what the Chalcedonian Creed said. It said rather "recognized in two natures". The Second Council of Constantinople later explained that this was not the introduction of a concrete twoness in Christ but rather theoretical and speculative recognition of the continuation of his full humanity and full divinity. How is it thus that the aforementioned phrase can be justified? How is it any different from saying, as the Nestorians, that Jesus Christ is one person (prosopon) in two concrete individuated existential realities (hypostases), especially given that "subsistence" is a common translation for "hypostasis"? Deusveritasest 01:44, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox