The Hypostatic Union

[maklelan]

I want to know if there is anyone out there who can explain the Hypostatic Union and how it is consistent with biblical Christianity.

[jadams_4242]

I want to know if there is anyone out there who can explain the Hypostatic Union and how it is consistent with biblical Christianity.

Thats pretty tuff stuff! I personallly beleive that Jesus is human when he was mortal.

Other than that, he is the divine being. Isnt this a Catholic beleif? {hypostaic union}.

[maklelan]

Thats pretty tuff stuff! I personallly beleive that Jesus is human when he was mortal.

Other than that, he is the divine being. Isnt this a Catholic beleif? {hypostaic union}.

Not originally. Plotinus and several Stoics came up with this doctrine before Catholicism got its hands on it.

[jadams_4242]

Not originally. Plotinus and several Stoics came up with this doctrine before Catholicism got its hands on it.

Well guess thats outta my miniscule mentall ability!

Any body else?

[Hoops22]

I want to know if there is anyone out there who can explain the Hypostatic Union and how it is consistent with biblical Christianity.

I think you have heard the explanation many times, haven't you? What are you looking for, really.

[maklelan]

I think you have heard the explanation many times, haven't you? What are you looking for, really.

I'm looking for an explanation that's not garbage. I'm wondering if anyone here actually knows what it means or if they just accept it without understanding like they've been told to do since it was first borrowed from the Greeks.

[PacMan]

It's a mystery of God-too complex for our minds to fully grasp...just like the intro to the KJV: Hidden gems of wisdom and poetic beauty that leave one to only respond, "Huh?"

At least all the early council definitions were consistent...

PacMan

[maklelan]

I'll go ahead and define it since no one seems to want to. If I make any mistakes you be sure to correct me. The Hypostatic Union is said to be the solution to the following problem: How can Christ have two different natures (human and divine) which are both present in their entirety, and yet be one substance and one "person"? Basically, how is it possible for Christ to be 100% God and 100% man? From "The Nature of the Hypostatic Union," by John Lamont (The Heythrop Journal 47.1 (2006): 16â??25):

The theological issue that I want to address arises from the fact that

some of the predicates in the human list â?? such as â??is a manâ??, â??is the son of

Maryâ??, â??is a body with a rational soulâ?? â?? are substantial predicates; that is,

for a thing to have such a predicate true of it is for it to be something that

has an independent existence, rather than for it to exist as a part or an

attribute of something else. At the same time, the person Christ of whom

these predicates are held to be true is the Second Person of the Trinity,

a divine being. This raises the question; what is the relation between the

entity to which these human predicates apply, and the Second Person of

the Trinity? This is the question of the nature of the hypostatic union.

There are two answers that can be given to this question.

Lamont summarizes Christianity's two answers: (1) Identity, that is, the person who sauntered through Galilee was qualitatively identical to the second person of the Trinity. Since they are identical in every way, they are one. I know, kinda silly, but this is how this kind of argument worked back then. (2) The attributes of man must exist independently in us to define us as man, but this law of logic is ignored because Christ is so awesome, and thus Christ's humanity can be viewed as only a part of his divine whole. He is thus not 100% human, but he still gets to be called 100% human. How is it done? Magic. Christianity originally chose the second answer, but then changed to the first answer.

[soren]

I want to know if there is anyone out there who can explain the Hypostatic Union and how it is consistent with biblical Christianity.

The hypostatic union is quite understandable, but it involves very precise concepts. For this reason, it can cause confusion in the same way that a math problem can, not because it is vague or unclear, but for the opposite reason, because it is more precise than the thoughts we usually entertain.

The doctrine of the hypostatic, or personal, union is that two distinct natures, human and divine, are united in the one person of Christ. Thus, if one asks, â??Who is Christ?â? only one answer can be given: â??The Son of God.â? Yet if one asks â??What is Christ?â? two answers can be given: â??Godâ? and â??man.â? The revealed doctrines that compel belief in the hypostatic union are that God is other than man, yet God became a man while not ceasing to be God. Put simply, â??The word became flesh.â?

With study, there is no unclarity regarding what it means to say that Christ is God and man; the part that really eludes the mind is how such a union can work, how it operates. This difficulty exists because our only direct experience is of finite natures and finite persons, which always follow the rule that one person has only one nature. By contrast, God is infinite, and faith teaches that He is therefore exempt from this rule. Because we do not know how infinity works, we cannot see how such a thing could function, but we can see enough to understand what it means for God to accomplish it and to know, by revelation alone, that He has, in a supreme condescension to man that only an infinite love could motivate. We can also see that the thought of one person with two natures is not contradictory, inasmuch as person (who) and nature (what) are indeed two different concepts.

This is only a summary. If you really want to understand the Catholic doctrine of Christ, the best starting point is Frank Sheedâ??s book Theology and Sanity.

[maklelan]

With study, there is no unclarity regarding what it means to say that Christ is God and man; the part that really eludes the mind is how such a union can work, how it operates.

And it is this with which I take issue. To say, "Christ is 100% human and 100% divine," is easy enough. That's what was needed at that time period, but then and in the almost 2,000 years since the explanation of how it works remains the same: We can't understand. Being 100% human precludes being anything else in nature, and they knew that back then. Rather than try to explain it, they just said, "He can be both, even though they are contradictory. We have no idea how, but it just works. Argument over." I find that a little ridiculous, and so did everyone else on the planet whose very lives were not dependent upon its legitimacy.

We can also see that the thought of one person with two natures is not contradictory, inasmuch as person (who) and nature (what) are indeed two different concepts.

And those two concepts were arbitrarily decoupled at the Council of Chalcedon with no explanation. They just said, "From now on, person and nature are separate." At the same time, however, the nature of being human precludes being anything else, as I stated above, so saying that person and nature are distinct does nothing to answer the question of how two mutually exclusive natures can still come together in one person. You can be 100% female and 100% Russian because those two natures do not conflict with each other, but what they're saying is akin to saying "I am 100% black and 100% white." It just can't happen. Thousands died, hundreds were banished, and churches condemned each other so that the answer could ultimately be, "It just does."

[soren]

And it is this with which I take issue. To say, "Christ is 100% human and 100% divine," is easy enough. That's what was needed at that time period, but then and in the almost 2,000 years since the explanation of how it works remains the same: We can't understand.

There has never been a time period in which the Incarnation was not a difficult teaching, not now, not 2,000 years ago. â??This is easy to believeâ? has never been a claim of the Church. Much to the contrary, the Incarnation is a stumbling block to the unbeliever precisely because it is such an uncompromising challenge to the assumptions we make about the world.

One key distinction: I do believe that the Incarnation is understandable, but not that it is comprehensible. Do you see the difference?

Being 100% human precludes being anything else in nature, and they knew that back then.

And we know it now too. The claim of the Church is that the rule of one person per nature applies to finite persons only. We believe on the basis of pure faith that the rule does not hold for the infinite. To overlook this claim as it pertains specifically to infinity, is to miss the issue altogether. On what basis do you believe that the infinite must be bound to the same rule as the finite? Do you have sufficient knowledge of infinity to prove that it must be?

Rather than try to explain it, they just said, "He can be both, even though they are contradictory. We have no idea how, but it just works. Argument over."

Having studied Catholic theology for most of my life, I find statements like this to be depressingly ignorant. In the first place, the best arguments I have ever read against the hypostatic union were those penned, not by Mormon apologists, but by Catholic theologians and some Muslims. The best Catholic example is St. Thomas Aquinas, who in page after page of the Summa Theologica raises all kinds of dilemmas and philosophical objections against the hypostatic union and all other doctrines, some original and some taken from other sources. He leaves few stones unturned. (Not counting a dozen or so scriptural objections, I have yet to hear an argument against the Incarnation from any person living or dead that St. Thomas did not make better.) He then goes on to answer them all, one by one, case by case, and with nary a straw-man argument in the list. St. Thomas is scrupulous in making the case against the Churchâ??s position in the strongest terms possible, addressing tough arguments with careful analysis and exact articulation. This is only one example of why your characterization of Catholic theologians writing off the difficulties with â??Argument overâ? is hardly impressive.

I find that a little ridiculous, and so did everyone else on the planet whose very lives were not dependent upon its legitimacy.

I doubt there is any single doctrine in any single religion for which more people have died as martyrs than the Incarnation of the Son of God. That so many have been willing to die for this faith is not surprising to one who knows its spiritual power. For the hypostatic union, as clunky as the name may sound, is the very means through which death and the sting of death are conquered. Man by nature is subject to death, but God by nature is not. Through the union of the two, death is conquered for man and divinity attained. Remove either the distinction of God and man or their perfect union in Christ, and the whole scenario crumbles, leaving us with no good reason to believe that death can be overcome at all.

And those two concepts were arbitrarily decoupled at the Council of Chalcedon with no explanation. They just said, "From now on, person and nature are separate."

Actually, person and nature are not â??separate.â? They are â??distinct.â? That is a very important difference, not nitpicking. No oneâ??s nature is separate from his person, since it is by and through the nature that the person has being and life, but they are distinct inasmuch as I am not my nature, but rather I am me.

The distinction of these concepts looks arbitrary only if one does not reflect deeply on the ideas involved. To give a very brief summary, the difference between substance and person is that â??substanceâ? expresses a thing inasmuch as it is existent whereas â??personâ? expresses it as individuated and rational. Does that sound arbitrary to you? There is a difference between existence and individuation, is there not?

At the same time, however, the nature of being human precludes being anything else, as I stated above, so saying that person and nature are distinct does nothing to answer the question of how two mutually exclusive natures can still come together in one person.

I do not claim to explain how becasue the question of â??howâ? is not the issue, because answering that presumes more knowledge of infinity than we possess. Do you know how your soul works? Do you know how baptism cleanses a man? How loaves can be multiplied, men resurrected, or how divine foreknowledge functions alongside human freedom? If you cannot answer these questions, should you then disbelieve in the soul or in baptism, in miracles, or in free will? I donâ??t know how my computer works; why should I demand to know how God does? A verse to take seriously is Isaiah 55:9: â??For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.â?

For a man of faith, the real issue is not â??howâ? but â??whether.â? The question of â??Did god become a man?â? does depend for its answer on how He did it any more than multiplying loaves. If He did it, it follows that He can, and the scriptures clearly show that He did. As to how that was accomplished, God keeps His own counsel. He has the right to, after all.

You can be 100% female and 100% Russian because those two natures do not conflict with each other, but what they're saying is akin to saying "I am 100% black and 100% white."

Here you hit the nail right on the head. The problem with the Incarnation is that a nature is not the same as a quality. Qualitatively, one person can be many different things at once, like being female, Russian, blue-eyed, and 130 lbs, as long as those qualities are in distinct categories, accidental to each other. Yet when one speaks of a thingâ??s nature, proper to its existence, multiplicity seems impossible, absurd even, like an eye being both blue and brown.

The logical harmony lies in the distinction of nature and person: the unity is in the person not the natures. The functional question of how it works remains unanswered as it hinges upon knowing the life of the infinite, which we admit we see only through a glass darkly.

It just can't happen. Thousands died, hundreds were banished, and churches condemned each other so that the answer could ultimately be, "It just does."

This is why I so often recommend Frank Sheedâ??s Theology and Sanity, to my Catholic friends as well as my Latter-day Saint ones. The best answer to the accusation of nonsense is a good, clear explanation, and that is what you will get if you read that book. At best, I have given some summary answers, not yet in great depth. That book is a better starting point that my account of things.

[rick7475]

Wikipedia can be your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_Union

[cksalmon]

or if they just accept it without understanding like they've been told to do since it was first borrowed from the Greeks.

Hi mak--

I'm curious as to your source detailing the specific borrowing of the hypostatic union from the Greeks.

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

LDS, of course, don't have anything comparable to the hypostatic union. The LDS Jesus was already more than human before his incarnation. He was already a God (in contradiction to the LDS Law of Eternal Progression, it seems, which requires embodiment as a necessary step along the path to Godhood).

Traditional Christians hold that Christ has two distinct natures. LDS cannot but believe that he had only one. For traditional Christians, Christ was both fully divine and fully human. I don't see how such a belief is even possible for LDS. For LDS, as I understand the theology, Christ had only one nature. He was neither fully human nor fully divine. Or, he was fully divine, but not fully human. At any rate, he had a single nature. I'd like to see a cogent LDS argument as to how Christ can fully represent humanity (as completely and simply human) and represent the Godhead (as fully and simply divine).

This dual nature is central to the traditional understanding of Christ's mediatorial role in salvation. Given traditional LDS theological claims about the nature of Jesus, he cannot have two natures. He cannot be both perfectly human and perfectly divine. He exists rather along a continuum that fully and completely represents neither side of the equation.

Or, perhaps your understanding is different than my own.

Best.

CKS

[SlackTime]

LDS, of course, don't have anything comparable to the hypostatic union. The LDS Jesus was already more than human before his incarnation. He was already a God (in contradiction to the LDS Law of Eternal Progression, it seems, which requires embodiment as a necessary step along the path to Godhood).

This comment has come up before, but it isn't contradiction.

For most of those who make it into the Celestial Kingdom and become "like God" we will be resurrected first, judged, and exalted, before receiving the power from God to be like God. Christ received the power to reign and be like God in this world and by Divine Investiture wields God's power over this creation. But He still required a body, and resurrection, to be exalted and glorified. He was given power and responsibility that the rest of us did not get in order to complete a calling that we could not complete on our own.

As I see it, Christ followed our physical process the same as us with only one minor difference. He was born physically capable of never dying. Adam also was born with that trait, but partook of the fruit and lost it.

Where Christ excelled all of us was in his intelligence and oneness with the Father. He was united in purpose, values, knowledge, and work, from the pre-existence. This oneness is what we have not yet developed and must develop as much as we can in this life. This oneness is why He was chosen to receive the power of God to save God's children. And, why He was made "God" by Divine Investiture even when Christ was still a spirit.

-SlackTime

[maklelan]

There has never been a time period in which the Incarnation was not a difficult teaching, not now, not 2,000 years ago. â??This is easy to believeâ? has never been a claim of the Church. Much to the contrary, the Incarnation is a stumbling block to the unbeliever precisely because it is such an uncompromising challenge to the assumptions we make about the world.

But those "assumptions" have never been questioned and still hold true universally. They are challenged by this idea only because they needed them to be in order for their doctrine to be accepted, but they never, of course, explain in any way, shape, or form how the challenge is justified, only that it exists.

One key distinction: I do believe that the Incarnation is understandable, but not that it is comprehensible. Do you see the difference?

No. Those two words are synonyms. What substantial distinction do you make between these two words?

And we know it now too. The claim of the Church is that the rule of one person per nature applies to finite persons only.

And by what control or precedence (besides the need for a solution to the current problem) do you decide that it does not apply to infinite beings?

We believe on the basis of pure faith that the rule does not hold for the infinite. To overlook this claim as it pertains specifically to infinity, is to miss the issue altogether. On what basis do you believe that the infinite must be bound to the same rule as the finite? Do you have sufficient knowledge of infinity to prove that it must be?

No, but nor do you have any knowledge at all that substantiates your guess that the union works just because. I believe this is a cop-out. In addition, the quality that we're supposed to be explaining is his finite quality, but you explain it by saying he's not finite. How can you say that Christ can be 100% human because he's not human? I think that's absurd.

Having studied Catholic theology for most of my life, I find statements like this to be depressingly ignorant. In the first place, the best arguments I have ever read against the hypostatic union were those penned, not by Mormon apologists, but by Catholic theologians and some Muslims. The best Catholic example is St. Thomas Aquinas, who in page after page of the Summa Theologica raises all kinds of dilemmas and philosophical objections against the hypostatic union and all other doctrines, some original and some taken from other sources. He leaves few stones unturned. (Not counting a dozen or so scriptural objections, I have yet to hear an argument against the Incarnation from any person living or dead that St. Thomas did not make better.) He then goes on to answer them all, one by one, case by case, and with nary a straw-man argument in the list. St. Thomas is scrupulous in making the case against the Churchâ??s position in the strongest terms possible, addressing tough arguments with careful analysis and exact articulation. This is only one example of why your characterization of Catholic theologians writing off the difficulties with â??Argument overâ? is hardly impressive.

1) Does he ever use the "finite beings might not be restricted by the same laws as us" argument?

2) Do you really think that his arguments are flawless and that he left nothing out? Because modern scholarship disagrees with you if you do.

3) How come the explanations of the Hypostatic Union change over time? IF he provided all the answers, why is his definition out of style?

4) You above stated that infinite beings are not restricted by the same laws as we are and left it at that. I consider that to be identical to saying, "It just works."

I doubt there is any single doctrine in any single religion for which more people have died as martyrs than the Incarnation of the Son of God.

The irony is that the vast majority of the dead were the ones that opposed the Hypostatic Union. As it is commonly said, the winners write the history books, and the doctrine. There are several battles that, had they gone the other way, would have changed the doctrine entirely, and you would be fighting tooth and nail for Monophysitism.

That so many have been willing to die for this faith is not surprising to one who knows its spiritual power. For the hypostatic union, as clunky as the name may sound, is the very means through which death and the sting of death are conquered. Man by nature is subject to death, but God by nature is not. Through the union of the two, death is conquered for man and divinity attained. Remove either the distinction of God and man or their perfect union in Christ, and the whole scenario crumbles, leaving us with no good reason to believe that death can be overcome at all.

Actually, person and nature are not â??separate.â? They are â??distinct.â? That is a very important difference, not nitpicking. No oneâ??s nature is separate from his person, since it is by and through the nature that the person has being and life, but they are distinct inasmuch as I am not my nature, but rather I am me.

But there were several other doctrines that filled in those holes just as well. The only reason you preach the hypostatic union instead of nestorianism, monophysitism, or any number of other -isms is because you were backed by the bigger army.

The distinction of these concepts looks arbitrary only if one does not reflect deeply on the ideas involved. To give a very brief summary, the difference between substance and person is that â??substanceâ? expresses a thing inasmuch as it is existent whereas â??personâ? expresses it as individuated and rational. Does that sound arbitrary to you? There is a difference between existence and individuation, is there not?

I'll give you that, but that doesn't help the union all that much.

I do not claim to explain how becasue the question of â??howâ? is not the issue, because answering that presumes more knowledge of infinity than we possess.

And yet you still presume to explain how infinite beings relate to finite? You are basing this entire argument upon an axiom that you cannot demonstrate to be true. You cannot even explain the axiom, but without this axiom your doctrine falls apart. So you conjure up the axiom, build the doctrine on top of it and explain that the axiom is beyond us. And this is exactly my point when I say the whole thing is based on "We have no idea, but it just works."

Do you know how your soul works? Do you know how baptism cleanses a man? How loaves can be multiplied, men resurrected, or how divine foreknowledge functions alongside human freedom? If you cannot answer these questions, should you then disbelieve in the soul or in baptism, in miracles, or in free will? I donâ??t know how my computer works; why should I demand to know how God does? A verse to take seriously is Isaiah 55:9: â??For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.â?

We all accept that those things are true. There's no need to explain it. If a church undertakes to introduce a foreign and controversial doctrine to justify another doctrine, and attempts to rationalize it philosophically, their arguments are not above criticism. Just because God says, "My ways are above yours," does not mean whatever doctrine you make up that cannot be explained is true. I can just as easily say that our Church's ideas are true because you don't know what infinite beings are capable of and you cannot explain the soul. Why am I wrong and you are right? Shouldn't we restrict ourselves to either what the scriptures say or what is demonstrably true? I think that if we hold the scriptures to be the final authority then we cannot demand adherence ot a doctrine that is incomprehensible and utterly unbiblical.

For a man of faith, the real issue is not â??howâ? but â??whether.â? The question of â??Did god become a man?â? does depend for its answer on how He did it any more than multiplying loaves. If He did it, it follows that He can, and the scriptures clearly show that He did. As to how that was accomplished, God keeps His own counsel.

But the Hypostatic Union is the outcome of hundreds of years of trying to explain how.

He has the right to, after all.

Here you hit the nail right on the head. The problem with the Incarnation is that a nature is not the same as a quality. Qualitatively, one person can be many different things at once, like being female, Russian, blue-eyed, and 130 lbs, as long as those qualities are in distinct categories, accidental to each other. Yet when one speaks of a thingâ??s nature, proper to its existence, multiplicity seems impossible, absurd even, like an eye being both blue and brown.

The logical harmony lies in the distinction of nature and person: the unity is in the person not the natures. The functional question of how it works remains unanswered as it hinges upon knowing the life of the infinite, which we admit we see only through a glass darkly.

But the Hypostatic Union exists to answer how. If there was no need to explain how then the Hypostatic Union would not exist, but the several factions could not agree on how, which is why we had the schism and why we now have several groups split off from the Catholics. I think you're making my point for me, which, from the beginning, has been that there is no explanation of how, just, "It works."

This is why I so often recommend Frank Sheedâ??s Theology and Sanity, to my Catholic friends as well as my Latter-day Saint ones. The best answer to the accusation of nonsense is a good, clear explanation, and that is what you will get if you read that book. At best, I have given some summary answers, not yet in great depth. That book is a better starting point that my account of things.

I'll check it out when I have more time to dedicate to this, but my main focus now is a paper on creatio ex nihilo in II Maccabees 7 for a conference in December. Maybe I'll look into the Hypostatic Union for a Symposium coming up in February.

[maklelan]

Hi mak--

I'm curious as to your source detailing the specific borrowing of the hypostatic union from the Greeks.

Best.

CKS

Sure. Hypostasis was a construct invented by the Greeks. It was completely unique to them until Christianity took it over, and the Christian usage of the term exactly correlates with the Greek.

Plotinus (b. AD 205) imagined his Trinity long before Nicea. It consisted of three consubstantial hypostases. The first was "the One," the second, the "Nous," also the "Intellect" or "Logos." The third is the world soul. There relationship to each other is defined by hypostasis. Funny enough, Plotinus' definition of a hypostatic trinity is the same as his roughly contemporary Christian philosophers who seemed to quote him verbatim. St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. John Damascene, and St. Maximus use his unique vernacular in defining the Trinity as he defines it (See Vladimir Lossky, God in Trinity (St. Vladimirâ??s Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY, 1976), 55â??60).

Ambrose appealed to the Plotinian Trinity in his battling against Arianism. Augustine thought for a long time that Plotinus' Trinity was identical in many aspects to Christianity's, and Plotinus helped Augustine formulate much of his theology. Augustine equated the Nous to Christ. Augustine fought Manichaean materialism by appealing to Plotinus' ideas about the immateriality of God. He countered the Cappadocian fathers concerning the unity of the Trinity with Plotinus. He explains the generation of the Son and his relationship with the Father in Plotinian terms (See Thomas A. Wassmer, "The Trinitarian Theology of Augustine and His Debt to Plotinus," Harvard Theological Review 53.4 (October 1960): 261â??68).

Another example of the collusion between the two is Dionysius. This is a writing purporting to be from a companion of Paul, but it is blatantly and overtly Plotinian in nature. A person who has read Plotinus and Dionysius would not be able to tell the two apart if it were not for the names. This text was thought to be genuine for almost 1,000 years. During the time the idea of a Hypostatic Union was being accepted in Christianity, Dionysius was a text thought to have come directly from the teachings of Paul.

See also, JS Rhee, The influence of Plotinus on Augustine as illustrated in his doctrine of the Trinity (San Fransisco: San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1963); A. H. Armstrong, "The Plotinian Doctrine of NOUS in Patristic Theology," Vigiliae Christianae 8.4 (Oct., 1954): 234â??38; Michael J. B. Allen, "Marsilio Ficino on Plato, the Neoplatonists and the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity," Renaissance Quarterly 37.4 (Winter, 1984): 555â??84; John N. Jones, "The Status of the Trinity in Dionysian Thought," The Journal of Religion 80.4 (Oct., 2000): 645â??57.

No one who has studied this objectively can really say that the idea of the Hypostatic Union did not find its birth in Plotinus and the Stoics.

[johnny]

maklelan,

How can you say that Christ can be 100% human because he's not human? I think that's absurd.

If Christ is God (John 1:1), did God die on the cross (1Cor 15:3) ... please explain?

[maklelan]

maklelan,

If Christ is God (John 1:1), did God die on the cross (1Cor 15:3) ... please explain?

Christ is one member of the Godhead and so holds the title God, but Christ is by no means the entire Godhead. To think so is a little ridiculous, considering Christ asked His Father why he forsook him while he was on the cross. Am I to understand that he was asking himself why he forsook himself? Certainly your capacity for abstract thought renders such a situation a little untenable.

[johnny]

maklelan,

Christ is one member of the Godhead and so holds the title God, but Christ is by no means the entire Godhead. To think so is a little ridiculous, considering Christ asked His Father why he forsook him while he was on the cross. Am I to understand that he was asking himself why he forsook himself? Certainly your capacity for abstract thought renders such a situation a little untenable.

The Son and the Father are distinct persons. The Godhead does not consist of "three Gods".

Again I ask,

If Christ is God (John 1:1), did God die on the cross (1Cor 15:3) ... please explain

Hypostatic union is the belief that Christ is one person with two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person. Paul teaches us, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). The Son of God has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man.

Jesus Christ is true God and true man; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God's Son. Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Hypostatic union was not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way it is now. Understanding grew and deepened over time. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says: You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,... he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate... he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen [Rom 1:3; Jn 1:14].

[cksalmon]

No one who has studied this objectively can really say that the idea of the Hypostatic Union did not find its birth in Plotinus and the Stoics.

Ultimately, the question of who had the "idea" first is irrelevant. Is the doctrine of the hypostatic union true? That's the far more germane question.

I guess I was asking for a specific reference to a source text for an analogous, Greek-derived "hypostatic union" (pursuant to your OP)--i.e., a source that reflects the central conceit of the Christian hypostatic union (Christ's being fully human and fully divine). Plotinus certainly won't get us there.

The borrowing of language, or even a conceptual framework (which is debatable in this case), in the service of articulating the hypostatic union does not render it untrue, of course.

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

maklelan,

The Son and the Father are distinct persons.

Quite right, but your church long ago decided that they would make up this ridiculous philosophical mumbo-jumbo about how more than one person can exist inside one individual being. That's not in the Bible.

The Godhead does not consist of "three Gods".

Prove it.

Again I ask,

If Christ is God (John 1:1), did God die on the cross (1Cor 15:3) ... please explain

One member of the Godhead died on the cross. God the Father did not die and the Holy Spirit did not die. Your question is not all that tricky or deep. I've answered it twice now. If there is some kind of point or punchline to this question you may provide it now, because my answer is not going to change.

Hypostatic union is the belief that Christ is one person with two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person. Paul teaches us, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). The Son of God has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man.

Well then I submit that Jesus was 100% male and 100% female. Since we're operating on the axiom that infinite beings are not subject to any laws of logic or rationality, then you can't prove me wrong. This whole making up nonsensical arguments and reasserting them over and over without providing any evidence whatsoever is fun. Whee!

Jesus Christ is true God and true man; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God's Son. Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Mumbo-jumbo. It's really not necessary to believe this stuff anymore since we don't have a Greek society breathing down our necks demanding we make our gospel sexy.

Hypostatic union was not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Churchâ??s early days the way it is now. Understanding grew and deepened over time. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says: You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,... he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate... he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen [Rom 1:3; Jn 1:14].

So as time went on smarter and smarter people were able to make it sound more and more like this mumbo-jumbo actually meant something? They haven't convinced me. Their whole argument still rests upon an axiom that is utterly unprovable and was concocted entirely to hold up this mumbo-jumbo.

[maklelan]

Ultimately, the question of who had the "idea" first is irrelevant. Is the doctrine of the hypostatic union true? That's the far more germane question.

And since the Greeks made it up (and it's not true) and then the Christians aped it to justify their position, I'm pretty satisfied we can conclude that it is untrue. At the very least, the fact that it is utterly incomprehensible (so defined by the proponents of the idea) ought to convince you it deserves a closer inspection. I'm surprised you're defending this idea that completely and totally and admittedly abandons the laws of logic and reason. I've never known you to give an argument a chance when it was based entirely on "We don't know if infinite beings are subject to the laws of reason, so we can safely conclude that in this instance they don't."

I guess I was asking for a specific reference to a source text for an analogous, Greek-derived "hypostatic union" (pursuant to your OP)--i.e., a source that reflects the central conceit of the Christian hypostatic union (Christ's being fully human and fully divine). Plotinus certainly won't get us there.

No, there is no primary text that says, "Oh, and we all got this from Plotinus." If you check out my sources you'll find some statements that get pretty darn close, though. John of Damascus, for example, is explicit about where the ideas come from. Origen (one of the most influential Fathers there ever was) and Plotinus were both tutored by the same person: Ammonius Saccus. The Neoplatonic hypostases were constructs to explain how the Trinity was united in one just like the Christian, they just began with different criteria. That Christianity only had to struggle with the relationship between the Father and the Son, and they had a few other differences from the beginning (like the idea that the second member of the Trinity was fully human), does not at all preclude influence. In fact, the need for centuries for someone to be able to iron out the problems involving how to make it work considering those very differences is a pretty clear indication that borrowing took place.

The borrowing of language, or even a conceptual framework (which is debatable in this case), in the service of articulating the hypostatic union does not render it untrue, of course.

But the borrowing did not just occur to articulate the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union in and of itself, with all the same bells and whistles, is what was borrowed. Scholars who have looked into this have found the evidence far too overwhelming to just dismiss as you have. I'll say it again, not one single scholar who has looked objectively at this doubts at all that the entire idea was borrowed from the Greeks. I've provided some sources and if you like I can provide more. If you have specific criticisms to make then I ask for them, but to ask for sources and then wave your hand and dismiss their arguments without even knowing what they are is uncharacteristic of you.

[johnny]

maklelan,

Quite right, but your church long ago decided that they would make up this ridiculous philosophical mumbo-jumbo about how more than one person can exist inside one individual being. That's not in the Bible.

Catholics do not teach that "one person can exist inside one individual being.

>> The Godhead does not consist of "three Gods".

Prove it.

Neither Jesus or Paul taught "three Gods" like Joseph Smith taught, The Apostle Paul taught "there is none other God but one ...

there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ". The Bible reveals in the Son "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9).

One member of the Godhead died on the cross.

How can one member of the Godhead die on the cross ... how can God die?

Well then I submit that Jesus was 100% male and 100% female.

Your submission that Jesus is 100% female is not supported by the Bible. The submission that Jesus Christ is true God and true man is supported by the Bible.

It's really not necessary to believe this stuff anymore since we don't have a Greek society breathing down our necks demanding we make our gospel sexy.

I believe Jesus Christ is true God and true man because this is what the Bible reveals.

Their whole argument still rests upon an axiom that is utterly unprovable and was concocted entirely to hold up this mumbo-jumbo.

What part is mumbo-jumbo ... do you believe Jesus is fully divine ... do you believe Jesus is fully man?

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Catholics do not teach that "one person can exist inside one individual being.

I'm done speaking with you Johnny. It's utterly worthless.