72
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:::I am happy to take this conversation to PM on Monachos.net if you like.
::: [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 06:33, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, aside from that fact that I really don't like using "person" as a translation of ''hypostasis'', I agree that it a much more accurate description of the union. To say that "there are two natures in (making up) the ''hypostasis'' of Christ" isn't really all that worrisome language, whereas saying the reverse "Christ is in two natures" is language that worries me significantly more. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 19:29, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
''Subsists'' can mean a lot of things. Indeed, if it is a sort of verbal form of ''hypostasis'', it's actually quite appropriate, i.e., to say that Christ is enhypostasized (another common term for the same thing) in two natures. In any event, this terminology is [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22subsists+in+two+natures%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f quite common] in Chalcedonian Christological writing. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:07, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:Father, I'm not quite sure what you mean that "Christ is enhypostasized in two natures". Could you please elaborate? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 19:29, March 9, 2009 (UTC)