Gentlemen
I will keep it short here while I work. Bull thanks for joining and providing your specific responses.
Frankly, I am looking forward to some intelligent discussion inc. clarification of terms, etc. I appreciate your patience and will adjust my terms accordingly as you make them clear.
My main point will ultimately be that Jesus is missing something fundamental - that the 2nd person did not take on a functional human being but an non-functional human nature. If I am incorrect, I would love to be corrected and move towards clarification.
More than anything, I would like to get to an honest agreement as to the nature of your Christological model - without word games (he is only a divine person but he is really a genuine man is a word game). Regardless of anything else, we should be able to come to agreement of the specifics of your christological model. I do want to accurately represent you.
Bull - I am NOT a mormon - I hate the Mormon church - it is of Satan.
Mac is generally right re: the Christological antecendent - although there were others besides Ebionism - see Theodotius and others in the 2nd C.
Best,
Aner
I can clarify my general terminology in a way that is (to me) pretty straightforward. I'm glad we've realized that this is necessary, as it gives me hope for progress within the discussion.
The Christological debates of the 5th c. inherited a mess of terminology, and did not (by and large) resolve it. Some of the terms are used interchangeably within the primary sources, and it is important to look at the context to see how (within a given statement) the writer intends for the word to be used. For example, Nestorius speaks of two "prosopon" (effected centers that recieve action / are acted upon / have distinct names) and one "prosopon" (one individual whom we witness in the Gospels). He means the terms in different ways at different times, and that causes confusion. St. Cyril isn't much better in terms of clarity, but is
remarkably consistent in his insistence that there be an ontological unity without the diminishment of either the divinity or humanity in any way. Broadly speaking, he expresses that idea with the following definitions for the four critical Christological (and Trinitarian, for that matter) terms:
1)
Physis (generally translated nature, sometimes essence). In some cases, this refers to the substantiated ontological expression of a genus (St. Cyril often means it this way; hence his insistence on "one nature" of Christ early in his writings), but within the Chalcedonian Churches this term has come to be used exclusively as "genus." That is, it is the name for a category of things that all share common characteristics, and when referred to as a "physis" it evokes each and every one of those characteristics. So, for example, if I say "human nature" I imply EVERYTHING on the list of "what it means to be human." If I say "rock nature" I imply everything it means to be a rock.
2)
Hypostasis (generally translated as essence, sometimes nature). Similarly to physis, this term could be used to denote a genus, but more commonly denotes the ontological reality of a being possessing a nature. It isn't itself the substance of that nature, but rather expresses the ontology in an abstract way. The easiest analogy is to think of a fictional human being in a story; within that world, they are ontologically human, even though they don't have any substance. However, most things that are hypostatically something
will be that thing
in substance as well. The Greeks just had a different term for that. The hypostasis is the essence of a being - it is the name for what a specific being
is (whereas physis is more conceptual and describes a group the being belongs to).
3)
Prosopon (person, or entity, or being). This term, today, connotes a
center of action or activity but
did not imply that in the 5th c. The idea of each person as a unique center of being in part developed
because of these debates. More specifically, it denotes an "individual." What happens to one person doesn't happen to another. If you hit me, you haven't hit "human nature" - you've hit Macarius, a prosopon (a single hypostatic ontological instance of the physis "human").
4)
Ousia (substance, sometimes essence). This term denotes the physical substance of a nature. Actually, the word 'physical' is misleading because this term is also used for God's "substance." Whatever a hypostatic reality is
made from is its "ousia."
So, in general, a single prosopon is made of a single ousia that corresponds to that prosopon's hypostasis, which is itself the prosopon's ontological membership in the category of its physis.
In descending order from most conceptual to most literal / real, you'd go from physis (most conceptual) to hypostasis (semi-conceptual, but rooted in ontological reality), to prosopon (still semi-conceptual, but referring to an individual), to ousia (not at all conceptual).
So, let's use the terms. We teach that God is ONE ousia (substantially one), and of ONE physis (which includes omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternal existence and preexistence, perfect love, etc). However, there are three hypostasis in the Trinity, expressed as three prosopon: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Because they are ONE ousia, they can be called one God. Furthermore, because of their common nature, they are each in all the same places (everywhere), at all the same times (preexisting / uncreated), doing the same stuff (being all powerful), with the same motive (love). In every way we typically differentiate people, they are one. As such, we teach one God (one physis, one ousia) in three Persons (three hypostasis / prosopon).
We arrive at this (rather contrived) way of describing God not because we comprehend Him. I have no clue whatsoever how Three Persons have one ousia. That's a mystery way beyond my finitude. However, we observe, quite strongly, that Scripture calls Christ the "only begotten" of the Father. Now, there is a difference between that and what we are (God's handiwork).
Let me explain. A carpenter makes things with wood. The table he makes, that is his handiwork (much like creation is God's). The table doesn't share a nature with the carpenter. But the carpenter's son? The carpenter's SON isn't going to be a table, or a rock, or an elephant. The carpenter's son is going to be a carpenter.
So God's "only begotten" MUST have the Divine physis. Physis begets physis. Things from one genus, if able to reproduce, produce things of a like physis (though a distinct hypostasis and a new prosopon). Obviously, I've no clue how God begets within the Trinity - again, that's beyond me. I'm only going off of what God has REVEALED: that Christ is His only begotten. Physis begets physis, therefore Christ is God. God is one, and says quite plainly that He and the Father are one, so we know they share one ousia. The Holy Spirit's procession from the Father likewise indicates His divinity alongside the Father and Son. And from this we now have the paradox (though not a contradiction) of Three Prosopon of one physis and one ousia. Three in One.
Yet this means that Christ, the human, is GOD. How? The Son (so named because of the revelation of God through Christ), we know Him to be fully human. You yourself point out the clear indications of that in Scripture. Let alone the fact that HE DIES. That's a pretty human thing to do. So here we have one person (we don't experience "two people" in Christ - there is only one Jesus) who we know to be Divine AND human.
To try and express THAT mystery (and it is a mystery), we focus on the unity of Christ on the hypostasis / prosopon level. Christ is two ousia (He is substantially human and substantially divine), from two physis (He has EVERYTHING it means to be human and EVERYTHING it means to be divine). But He unites these two physis into a single hypostasis (He has ONLY one ontology - He is ontologically a single being, a single prosopon). This incredible mystery is only possible because of the voluntary self-emptying of God. God is not diminished by the hypostatic union because He voluntarily accepts all the limitations of His new humanity (which means He can still voluntarily throw off those limitations).
Because Christ has a FULL human ousia, expressing a FULL human physis, and because this is ONTOLOGICALLY (hypostatically) united to His pre-existing Divine physis / ousia, we can say there is ONE prosopon that has EVERYTHING it means to be human - He IS human. Ontologically. After the Incarnation, we don't have divinity with humanity wrapped around it. We have a God that literally BECAME HUMAN. That's the miracle.
And that's the whole point of all this complexity. People get away from it, but it is really quite simple. We say that God became human. EVERYTHING that is human (all the stuff you're worried that we leave out of Christ's humanity) we teach that He has, that He IS - and not merely like putting on a new piece of clothing. He has adopted this ONTOLOGICALLY into His own condition of being. He has BECOME these things. That's the part I think you're missing. His humanity is a sheath he throws off - its a permanent reality (which He voluntarily and impassibly accepts by His omnipotence), a "hypostatic union."
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Macarius
