Talk:Hypostatic union

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)

This is a good question. Hmmm, thinking out loud:

A human can only have one essence since he shares of two seeds of the same essence, however,

Christ's paternal line is not from a "human" seed but from a "divine seed" so his paternal essence is divine.

Christ's maternal line IS of "human" seed; so that discounts the possibility that God "wore" humanity (much like a coat of human flesh over his divinity) ...

So, he is born as "one hypostasis of the Triune God" but in that hypostasis has two "essences"; the "essence" of God (which is eternal not created) and the "essence" of Man (which started with Adam)...

so, I agree, "subsists" may not be the right word to use because it implies that the two essences never united ...

but my question is ... do they unity or do they not unite? I think that March 25 they unite. Help.

Vasiliki 03:13, March 9, 2009 (UTC)