Talk:Hypostatic union

message: I believe that it might be helpful if one possible explanation for the Hypostatic Union is included, if there are more then even better. But it must be puzzeling to everyone as to how can it be possible that the nature of God and of a human can come together (incarnation) and still allow for "them" to be one person. 
Aristotle's concepts of essential, accidental, and common properties are what some Christian philosophers use to explain this. Essential properties are properties that are absolutely neede for something to be something; for example: a round shape is an essential property of a circle. Accidental properties on the other hands are non-essential properties that are not needed for something to be something; for example: consider a green circle . . . not just because the circle is green makes greenness an essential property of a circle, since a circle can be a circle without being green.  Coomon properties on the other hand are properties that are very common to something, but are still not neccessary for something to be something; for exapmle: most humans are born with ten fingers, but having ten fingers is not an essential property, it just happen to be common; someone can be human without having ten fingers.
Now using these terms, it can be argues that Jesus possessed all the  essential properties neccessary to be both a human and God. Thus Jesus possesing the attribute of omniscience is an essential attribute of being God (which is contrary to the kenosis theory), but this in turn does not make one unhuman. And so the arguement can be applied to different areas of the incarnation, bt it is the concept that is important to insert in the article.
Source: Nash, R.H. (1999). Life's Ultimate Qustion's. ISBN: 0-310-22364-4. 
--Frederick0511 07:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible explanation for the Hypostatic Union 

message: "Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3:iii, 14), but not in the sense of person."
Is it possible that a misreading of the above as "Hypostatic union ... came to be used ..." led to the nonsense that has been in this article since 23 April 2006?
In De Mundo IV, 21, (pseudo-)Aristotle used the term "hypostasis".  He did not use the term "hypostatic union" either there or anywhere else.  How could he?  For him "hypostasis" is the underlying reality, as opposed to the appearances.  There is only one underlying reality, not several.  For him "hypostatic union" would be an evident self-contradiction.  Indeed what was inserted here is nonsense: "something that exists simultaneously in two natures, or rather has one complete and absolute physical appearance, embodying the entire entity, its taste, flavour, chemistry, colour, texture, throughout its substance, while it is in fact something else": if it means anything, it just identifies, in contradiction to (pseudo-)Aristotle, nature/hypostasis and appearances, calling each of them "nature".
Lima 18:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing nonsense 

message: I think I have cleaned up this article.  It should now be clearer when "hypostatic union" is the reference, and when "hypostasis" is the reference.  I have also made the development of the word as a technical term a little clearer, and provided references.  Let me know what you think.  Pastordavid 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: If anything, the doctrine of the hypostatic union was formally defined by the Council of Ephesus. The Council of Chalcedon simply sought to protect the continuation of full humanity and full divinity in the context of the hypostatic union. It did not introduce the concept of the hypostatic union. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Chalcedon? 

message: This article appears to me to be terminologically a mess. The idea that hypostasis meant person in some abstract sense for the Fathers of Nicaea is incorrect to my knowledge. Rather, hypostasis meant the individuated and concrete manifestation of an ousia, an individuation that may or may not be personal depending on what ousia it is a manifestation of. The idea that hypostasis was identical to prosopon was not suggested until the Council of Chalcedon. Also, what meaning was associated with physis was flexible and varied. Apollinaris thus did not take hypostasis to mean physis (which the authors assume means ousia, evidence of their bias), but rather understood the varied word physis to mean hypostasis. The Antiochene and Western Christologians, on the other hand, generally used physis to mean ousia. This is why there was so much confusion over how many natures (physis) were in the Incarnate Word. I'm hoping to do an overhaul of the terminologies in this article. Does anyone object? Deusveritasest (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The text currently states:
:"hypostasis", translated reality or person
I find this unlikely, given the components hypo- and -stasis, which are Greek for "under" and "a standing still", respectively. Was this an alternative definition that later came into the lexicon? If someone has access to the text cited, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & other Early Christian Literature, could they provide the passage that mentions this? (Or, if it's incorrect, just remove it.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "hypostasis" 

message: The sentence, "The First Council of Ephesus recognised this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos" is misleading and/or incorrect.
The humanity and divinity of Christ are never made one.  They are joined in the one person of Christ, but the two natures nonetheless remain distinct. This is very basic. Stating that the two natures of Christ "are made one according to nature and hypostasis" is, at best, misleading, and at worst, totally incorrect.
99.166.140.234 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect/misleading summation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hypostatic union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619122112/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php to http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe the last sentence of the article is referring to the Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The document can be accessed online at the following address: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.210.12.216 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for "difference in terminology." 

message: This article is a bit confusing.  In the lede, the most important fact of the hypostatic union, that there is one hypostasis of God the Son, which has taken to Itself a complete human nature.  Talking about the union of the natures is incomplete in the context of the hypostatic union without mentioning this.  Each of us human beings is also a human person, but there is no human person in Christ, only a divine person, with a complete human nature.
Second, a reference please for "mystical union" as an alternative for hypostatic union. I've only ever heard that term used of an experience in prayer.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs rewriting