Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

'Hypostasis' and 'prosopon'


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Mina of Alexandria

Mina of Alexandria

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 11:26 AM

I think st.Cyril did not refer to the word physis that it means hypostasis ... physis is ousia , but when he said hypostatic union = physical union , this means that the unity is on the level of essences , and this also means -at least to me- that hypostasis is not essence and not prosobon ... it is PERSONALIZED essence , or an essence has a face.
this interprets the term hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3 and in all st.Cyril's writings.

thanks

#22 Peter Farrington

Peter Farrington

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:02 PM

Hi Mina

St Cyril most definitely did use physis as synonymous for hypostasis. But he also used it as synonymous for ousia. In the phrase 'one incarnate nature of the Word', often written as 'one incarnate nature OR hypostasis of the Word' it is to be understood as meaning hypostasis. That is, Christ is one individual, the incarnate Word, who is both human and Divine.

I can provide examples if you like?

Best wishes

Peter

#23 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 03:08 PM

St Cyril most definitely did use physis as synonymous for hypostasis. But he also used it as synonymous for ousia. In the phrase 'one incarnate nature of the Word', often written as 'one incarnate nature OR hypostasis of the Word' it is to be understood as meaning hypostasis. That is, Christ is one individual, the incarnate Word, who is both human and Divine.


Indeed, this is precisely what made Cyril's language (a) so dynamic in its expression, since he left the definition of certain terms fluid, so that they could be used in different ways in one context and others elsewhere, which made his conceptions resiliant and engaging with multiple realms of response; and (b) problematic in the reading of later generations, since fluid terms in an original writer can too easily become ambiguous terms in later readers, which in turn become problematic expressions. Eutyches in the fifth century expressed a view which was in some sense built on a misreading of the fluid terminology espoused by Cyril; that is, saying something with Cyril's words that Cyril would never have said.

Nestorious was of the opposite extreme: he was a man fond of semantic exactitude -- words that had clear definitions and meant precisely the same thing in each instance of their use. This made Nestorius often crystal clear; but as many contemporaries in his own day noted, often set him up for problems, as he became trapped in his own definitions and concepts.

INXC, Matthew

#24 Andrey

Andrey

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 29 September 2014 - 01:59 PM

I would also be interested in present EO use since I have not clearly understood what term the EO use for a particular instance of an ousia which has not yet had a person associated with it - since this is what the humanity is in Christ.

 

It's called human nature

 

But I am confused as to what you would call the humanity of Christ? It certainly does not have a human prosopon but you do not seem to have a term which allows you to describe a human individual without a human person?

 

It's called human nature

 

We don't use word individuality when speaking of God.

Because individuality is actually an inferiority.

 

Hypostasis and person is the same. There is no nature without hypostasis.

 

Human nature has many features: bones, skin, eyes, brain, etc. and it's alive. It can feel. It can be in horror, etc.

 

Person\hypostasis is what owns human nature. It's eternal and unique.

 

What differs one nature from another within that nature is individuality.

 

Examples.

You have blue eyes, I have brown. Other people have blue eyes too. That's not unique. 

I have a filling in my tooth. You don't? Well, somebody it the world has exactly the same.

I have a scar on my right elbow! Unique? No, somebody has it too right there exacatly like that.

There are even a double can be found of you in the world: an exact copy! There are twins, VERY exact!

 

What's the difference? The only one! The person\hypostasis.

It decides HOW to use nature.

 

Two twins. One can be monk, the other one can be army officer enjoying his job.

 

So Jesus has human nature, but human nature need a hypostasis\nature to take the lead from. He has only one: Of God-Word. No human person\hypostasis. And he has God's nature, because He is God.

But human nature of him becomes God by energy of God, not by joining together, because two different natures can never be joined, especially when one is transcendental.

And energy of God is God by nature: it takes its origin from transcendental God's nature.

So Jesus is a true God (God's nature is there), and a true man (human nature is there).


And human nature can be afraid, it might want to cry, it's in horror because it's about to die.

But look at people at war, they might pee in pants but still fighting. And Jesus has had Hypostasis of God, it's very strong-willed.

 

We can speak of:

i. Men stand at bus stops (meaning the generality or ousia). We could say men have two legs as well. We mean the general.

ii. There is a man at the bus stop (I would use the term physis. I am speaking about an individual but I have not defined anything about him)

iii. There is that man at the bus stop. The one with a funny hair cut. (I would use the term hypostasis, it is describing something about the particular attributes which mark this individual out from others).

iv. There is John at the bus stop. (I would use the term prosopon because I am referring to the owner of the hypostasis).

 

Persons stand there. Ousia can't stand, human nature alone can stand, it only can lie down in coma.

There is a person\hypostasis there.

There is that person there. He decided to look funny.

There is a person of John.

 

hypostasis, it is describing something about the particular attributes which mark this individual out from others

VERY wrong.

What marks out of others is individuality and that's inferiority.

 

Mathematical skills of one can be great, the other can be bad at it. They are both inferior by different level.

 

"there is none good" Mt.19:17

 

God is one, with 3 persons which are all God. Why is that? Because they are 3 hypostais\persons, and person\hypostasis is not what differs, but what uses nature which is one for 3 of them.

 

What is special about you? You don't know! But there is that something! Barely can anyone describe (nobody actually can) beause when start making sentences about your person, it will be all atributes other people have too. You can even a 100% match in the world when you are done writing an essay about how special your person is! 

 

Why God tells us His names? Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

And then tells that God doesn't change, Father is not born and eternal, Son is born, and Spirit is proceedeth. 

What that tells us?
There different persons, 3 different ways of using the nature.

 

When catholics say Spirit is also from Son, they basically say Spirit is not God.

Because what's common is nature, if God and Son have something in common (proceedeth), then that's nature. If Spirit doesn't have it, He doesn't belong to the nature. Or Spirit must proceedeth Himself from Himself.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users