Examining The Hypostatic Union

[Murad]

I believe in the hypostatic union.

The hypostatic union according to the Oxford Dictionary basically means:

"the combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ."

The Christian understanding is that Jesus is not half God and half man, but is fully divine and fully man. Both natures are not combined into a God-man nature, but they are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.

"At the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, the Church declared that Christ's two natures are joined "in one person and one hypostasis." (Denziger 302)

Point 1:
It would be really surprising if i said this doctrine has no source, because it really doesn't. There isn't a single verse in the ENTIRE Bible which explicitly says or implies that Jesus simultaneously had 2 natures.
So why is such a baseless doctrine preached within Christendom ?

Point 2:
Is the "hypostatic union" actually rational? By saying Jesus had 2 distinct natures: 'Divine & Human', implies that both attributes of the natures co-exist simultaneously. Any person that can think logically, can see that this is contradictory. Why? Because the attributes of man and of God contradict each other. In other words, the whole doctrine is oxyMORONIC.

Evaluation of Point 2:
God is all-knowing:

"whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
(1 John 3:20)

Jesus was not all-knowing:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Mark 13:32)

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Matthew 24:36)

Furthermore, Jesus grew in "wisdom":

"And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him."
(Luke 2:40)


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."
(Luke 2:52)

In order for Jesus to co-exist in 2 distinct natures: Divine(God) and human, the attributes of both the Divine and the human must co-exist simultaneously.

How can Jesus be all-knowing and not all-knowing simultaneously?

It is contradicting because: if Jesus is "all-knowing" that means he cannot be "not all-knowing." If Jesus is "not all-knowing" that means he cannot be "all-knowing."



According to the Bible, man is not eternal and God is eternal.

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."
(1 Timothy 6:16)

Humans are not eternal, God is eternal.
If we assume that Jesus co-exists in both natures: divine and man, how can Jesus be both eternal and not eternal simultaneously?
If Jesus has the nature of man, he CANNOT be eternal. Using logic, it is impossible for Jesus to co-exist simultaneously in both natures.


Point 3:
If i said person X has 2 distinct natures. One is male & the other is female. Would you believe me? No, because the very nature of both attributes contradict & oppose each other. Thus a human having both natures of male&female cannot co-exist simultaneously, the same way Jesus being "Fully man & Fully God" cannot co-exist simultaneously.

Point 4:
[Error & Conflict within the Trinity]
If Jesus has 2 distinct natures (Divine and man), then how many natures does the Father have? Biblically, only 1.
So Jesus has 2 natures, and the Father has 1 nature.
How can God have 2 natures and 1 nature simultaneously?


Conclusion:
The Hypostatic Union is a concoction, which when analysed, contradicts itselfs.

[Flail]

There is zero verifiable, credible evidence for Jesus' divinity, and has been demonstrated, people are free to conjure and speculate Jesus into whatever they choose. IMO, doing so is a huge waste of time and energy.

[myth-one.com]

The hypostatic union according to the Oxford Dictionary basically means:

"the combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ."

The Christian understanding is that Jesus is not half God and half man, but is fully divine and fully man. Both natures are not combined into a God-man nature, but they are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.

[Murad]

There is zero verifiable, credible evidence for Jesus' divinity, and has been demonstrated, people are free to conjure and speculate Jesus into whatever they choose. IMO, doing so is a huge waste of time and energy.

For every biblical verse that supposedly proves Jesus' divinity in the Bible, there is another verse that proves Jesus was no more than a human. Whether one believes Jesus is divine or human, is strictly subjective. BUT, the doctrines such as the 'Hypostatic Union' & the 'Trinity' are an insult to the human cognitive process: "It might not make sense logically, because its a divine mystery".

[Cathar1950]

There is zero verifiable, credible evidence for Jesus' divinity, and has been demonstrated, people are free to conjure and speculate Jesus into whatever they choose. IMO, doing so is a huge waste of time and energy.

For every biblical verse that supposedly proves Jesus' divinity in the Bible, there is another verse that proves Jesus was no more than a human. Whether one believes Jesus is divine or human, is strictly subjective. BUT, the doctrines such as the 'Hypostatic Union' & the 'Trinity' are an insult to the human cognitive process: "It might not make sense logically, because its a divine mystery".

All that after a long battle for him humanity only to disappear in his divinity like a "drop of vinegar in a sea", but that is what happens when the Greek mind gets an idea and runs wild. And then the Roman mind insisted it be taken literally and clarified. They should have said nothing; instead they started killing heretics or Arians.
They puzzled themselves into a corner and by the time they were done they changed the definition of God as a cosmic ideal and God Himself into, God, a trinity. Theological hubris?
Yet if he was fully human and fully divine with a perfect union yet equal in everything with the Father and by bridging the supposed gap would be something greater then the Father. I have no problem with God surpassing God and being increased, but they do.

[fredonly]

There is zero verifiable, credible evidence for Jesus' divinity, and has been demonstrated, people are free to conjure and speculate Jesus into whatever they choose. IMO, doing so is a huge waste of time and energy.

As Murad points out, the Bible contains verses that support both views of Jesus, as human and divine. In this subforum, the authority of the Bible is a premise, so it's inappropriate to challenge that here (take it to the Apologetics subforum).

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Council of Chalcedon's determination of Jesus Hypostatic nature is true doctrine, since they regard the Church councils as infallible. The question I have is: why do Protestants accept this extra-Biblical doctrine? I can understand Protestants accepting the dual divine/human nature of Jesus, since both are clearly stated in the Bible. However, the Bible does not describe anything as specific as what the Council of Chalcedon determined. I'd like to hear the Protestants view - is Hypostatis wrong, or did the Council just happen to get it right?

[Murad]

The question I have is: why do Protestants accept this extra-Biblical doctrine?

Its strictly subjective, the protestant position against catholicism is mere opinion or interpretation, so the belief in the hypostatic union is also mere opinion and very, very weird interpretation.

I'd like to hear the Protestants view - is Hypostatis wrong, or did the Council just happen to get it right?

You will get numerous subjective answers to that, depending on what sect the Christian belongs to(within Protestantism). As i said in the OP: "this doctrine has no source", and this claim is a challenge for anyone that believes there is.

[theopoesis]

The Christian understanding is that Jesus is not half God and half man, but is fully divine and fully man. Both natures are not combined into a God-man nature, but they are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.

I accept this definition. I do think that basing an entire argument on a definition and not on the comprehensive doctrine itself is a bit silly, though.

Point 1:
It would be really surprising if i said this doctrine has no source, because it really doesn't. There isn't a single verse in the ENTIRE Bible which explicitly says or implies that Jesus simultaneously had 2 natures.
So why is such a baseless doctrine preached within Christendom ?

There is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that there is a hypostatic union, but the entire NT as a whole can be interpreted in a way that makes the hypostatic union clear. Augmented with logic, the hypostatic union can stand. Jesus is clearly identified as divine in John 1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15-20, and Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13 (among many other passages). Jesus is clearly identified as a human in Hebrews 2:17, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 1:14, and Luke 24:39 (among many other passages). Throughout the NT Jesus is depicted as a single person, and not two. Therefore, it is no major leap to arrive at the hypostatic union.

Further, even if you reject these verses altogether, you have the history of theology to deal with. Here are five examples (among many) as to why the hypostatic union is logical in accordance with Biblical ideas:

(1) Anselm of Canterbury: The savior had to be a God-man because mankind had the obligation to pay the debt, but only God could pay the debt. If Jesus was only God, he could not pay the debt because he lacked the responsibility, but if he was only a human he could not pay the debt because he lacked the ability. Therefore, he must be a single person who is both God and man.

(2) Bonaventure: Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega, and this is often make into a philosophical statement that he is eternal. But a more appropriate understanding is that he was first and last. He was first as the pre-existent being through whom all things were created. He was last because he was himself the crowning creation and perfect human being, Jesus Christ. Apart from the incarnation, or the joining of the creative Principle with the perfect creation, Jesus (and God) could not appropriately be called the alpha and omega.

(3) Athanasius: Mankind had been created in the image of God, but that image was destroyed (or at least damaged) through sin. In order to restore the image in mankind, God himself had to take on human nature to purify it and restore the image to it. Jesus must be fully man and fully God to recreate this image of God in humanity.

(4) Irenaeus: Only a God-man could fulfill the Promises made in the Old Testament. How could David have a descendent whose reign would never end if the eternal one Himself did not become David's descendent? Jesus must be God and man to fulfill the promises.

(5) Gregory of Nazianzus: Jesus made a new human nature possible. When the divine nature joined hypostatically with the human nature, the human was purified and elevated. "That which he did not assume, he did not redeem" so a complete human nature must have been assumed in order for a complete redemption to be possible.

Of course, what I reduced to five sets of 1-2 sentences is actually five treatises from antiquity, each with many pages and arguments. There are also many more arguments where these came from. To call the hypostatic union "baseless" is nothing but polemic and ignorance of the history of theology. Perhaps the fathers were wrong, but the did not invent the hypostatic union without any reason for having done so. It wasn't baseless.

Point 2:
Is the "hypostatic union" actually rational? By saying Jesus had 2 distinct natures: 'Divine & Human', implies that both attributes of the natures co-exist simultaneously. Any person that can think logically, can see that this is contradictory. Why? Because the attributes of man and of God contradict each other. In other words, the whole doctrine is oxyMORONIC.

I consider the capitalization of MORONIC to be an insult. Please modify your tone in the future.

Gregory of Nyssa responded to your question in the following way: How does the soul unite with the body in a single human person? When you can answer that question, you can answer how the divine nature was united with the human.

Do you believe in the soul, Murad? Most Muslims do. Yet, the body is tangible and the soul intangible. The body is materialistic, and the soul immaterial. The body is corrupted by disease, but the soul by sin. The body hungers for food, but the soul only for God. Both of our religious traditions admit the possibility of a body and a soul combining into a single human person. If we admit this, despite the differences between the body and soul, why immediately reject the hypostatic union despite the differences between human and divine nature?

Evaluation of Point 2:
God is all-knowing:

"whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
(1 John 3:20)

Jesus was not all-knowing:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Mark 13:32)

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Matthew 24:36)

Many points here, Murad. First, "nor the son" is not in all manuscripts. It might not even be Biblical. On the other hand, there are good arguments for why it might be. So let's grant it for the moment.

In John 16:30 the disciples say that Jesus knew all things. There are many other Scriptures that could be interpreted in the same way, but let's limit it to this one. If you have a set of Scriptures that seems to suggest that Jesus is both God and man, and you have passages where Jesus is depicted as all knowing (John 16:30) and passages where Jesus has limited knowledge (Matthew 24:36), is it completely unreasonable to suggest that this God-man emptied himself of some of his omniscience in the incarnation (i.e. Phil. 2)? The interpretations of Jesus' humanity and divinity are built on passages such as these, and not refuted by them. In looking at these passages, early Christians saw a human and divine savior.

According to the Bible, man is not eternal and God is eternal.

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."
(1 Timothy 6:16)

You are ignoring the entire history of theosis (etc) whereby the union of finite man and eternal God brings eternal life to finite men. In fact, you are ignoring all passages in the NT that refer to the eternal life of humans. And you are ignoring the fact that the paradox of finitude and eternality was a reason why the hypostatic union was devised, not why it should be rejected. How can a finite human have communion with the infinite God? Through the unity of finite human nature and infinite divine nature in Jesus Christ, the new Adam.

Point 3:
If i said person X has 2 distinct natures. One is male & the other is female. Would you believe me? No, because the very nature of both attributes contradict & oppose each other. Thus a human having both natures of male&female cannot co-exist simultaneously, the same way Jesus being "Fully man & Fully God" cannot co-exist simultaneously.

Your argument seems to say because I don't believe it, therefore it must be false. This would be a logical fallacy. However, I will try to re-read your argument despite some unclear aspects and poor wording. Whether I believed you would be irrelevant.

Water is H20. Two molecules of hydrogen and one of Oxygen. They form a singe molecule with distinct properties, but the hydrogen does not cease to be hydrogen nor the oxygen oxygen. The atoms have different properties (and maybe contradictory properties, i'm not sure), but we do not deny their cohesion.

Furthermore, the early church and many since have interpreted salvation and eternal life as a process of purification/sanctification whereby human nature is made increasingly god-like. Becoming God is a destination that can ever be reached, but the union of human nature and divine nature in God is not a surefire argument against a God-man; rather it is the means by which two contradictory entities converge into communion, coherence, and identity by the restoration of the image of God. Again, you are bordering on a straw man. Contradictions are admitted and necessary for an orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union, which entails such ideas as the communicatio idomatum, the convergence of the very contradiction is assumed and is a part of the doctrine. You can't falsify a doctrine that is built upon, assumes, and needs a contradiction by pointing to the contradiction.

Female and male could be united to overcome contradiction if the female could in some way limit itself to become united with male, and if the male could be raised to become female. This doesn't make sense because there is no hierarchy of male/female just as there is no means to become less male or for a female to become more male-like. Females are not omnipotent and therefore able to limit themselves in this way, and males are not created in the image of females and able to be restored to their likeness. But the language of the NT is filled with language of Jesus limiting himself in the incarnation, of humans being raised, purified, sanctified, transformed, restored, etc. through communion with God. It's full of the language of humans created in the image of God. Taking the NT, the convergence and unity in a single person of divine and human natures is different from the convergence of male and female.

Sure, you can throw out the holy text, but to suggest that the hypostatic union is necessarily impossible based on an analogy to men and women does no justice to the Biblical text from which the hypostatic union emerged.

Moreover, if you are anything near an orthodox Muslim, you must reject your own argument in order to allow for the unity of the soul and body.

A final point here: I argued in a thread a few months ago about Personhood that the idea of the person was historically originated in the debates surrounding chalcedon, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity. "Person" as a word and philosophical concept began to be used in a new way because of Christian theology. Suddenly, the person was the first principle and being was subordinate, so that a person is different from a being and from the nature ascribed to that being. There can be three persons subsisting in one being, just as there can be one person with two natures. The definition of person perfectly allows this. If, however, you eliminate a distinction between person and being, then personhood is a vacuous idea. If you eliminate the distinction between person and being, the idea of two natures in one person is illogical primarily because "person" has no meaning in the first place. The only plausible theistic approaches then become pantheism or panentheism or paganism, but a religion (like Christianity or Islam) that allows for a God to create a world that then stands apart from Him requires the idea of a person that is above being and can relate to other persons as others. If this is not possible, then God, in creating the Universe, expands his own being (thus pantheism) or creates a different being that cannot therefore relate to His own being. The philosophy undergirding Christianity frees it from your challenge just as it allows for the basic theological tennets of both of our faiths.

To summarize: Your argument is poorly worded, counter-examples exist, you do not accurately represent the hypostatic union (thus a straw man), your criticism can be leveled against your own position, and you pay no attention to the philosophy of ontology and personhood. In short, your critique is entirely too simplistic and uninformed.

Point 4:
[Error & Conflict within the Trinity]
If Jesus has 2 distinct natures (Divine and man), then how many natures does the Father have? Biblically, only 1.
So Jesus has 2 natures, and the Father has 1 nature.
How can God have 2 natures and 1 nature simultaneously?

God is a trinity. Three persons subsist in one being. The person of the Son has the full nature of God because he participates in the full being of God. Thus, his divine nature is identical with the Father's. The person of the Son took on human nature, so that the person of the Son has human and divine nature. The Person of the Father, who is different than the Person of the Son, did not take on human nature so has one nature. God (which is Being) still has one nature, which the Person of the Son partakes of, but the Person of the Son has another nature, humanity, which remains distinct from the nature of God. In asking how God can have two natures, you completely misrepresent the hypostatic union. If God (on the level of nature/being) took on human nature, then the one nature incorporated the other and there would be unity and your entire post would be uneccessary. What the hypostatic union argues is that one person took on two natures which continued to exist without comingling or combination, so God (on the level of being/nature) did not have two natures. The Person of the Son had two natures. Very different.

Conclusion:
The Hypostatic Union is a concoction, which when analysed, contradicts itselfs.

Did you actually "analyze"? Murad, I don't go around starting threads about how Islam is oxyMORONIC because I don't know the doctrines of Islam well enough to judge. I've taken a class or two and read a few books and talked with a few Muslim friends, but I'm still learning. Your post is evidence to me that you took a definition from a dictionary and a three sentence summary of the hypostatic union then tried to show why it was moronic. Perhaps you could better understand what the hypostatic union was, how it originated, or what sources it came from if you sought to understand it more fully first. Have you ever read Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, or any other theologian who actually addresses these issues? It might be helpful if you did.

[Wootah]

The forum needs a 'like' feature. That was a heck of a reply by Theopoesis.

I pointed this out to Murad when he was discussing the Trinity and complaining how he couldn't comprehend it and yet in other contexts he can miraculous comprehend teams, ummas, groups and so on.

Now in the hypostatic union he can't understand it but Theopoesis easily points out that Muslims believe in the body and soul which is basically the same thing. Or water as pointed out again.

Did you actually "analyze"?

Murad, how come you are unable to understand Christian concepts when you can understand the same concept in other contexts? Demonstrate some ability that you absorbing rebuttals and participating in an exchange.

Anyway Theopoesis that was enlightening.

[Murad]

Hey theopoesis, sorry for the late reply, i dont follow posts anymore(too many annoying emails )

Point 1:
It would be really surprising if i said this doctrine has no source, because it really doesn't. There isn't a single verse in the ENTIRE Bible which explicitly says or implies that Jesus simultaneously had 2 natures.
So why is such a baseless doctrine preached within Christendom ?

There is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that there is a hypostatic union

The same goes for the doctrine of the 'trinity', but vague verses are interpreted to create certain doctrines in order to annul self contradictory biblical verses.
Do you agree? Why/Why not?

, but the entire NT as a whole can be interpreted in a way that makes the hypostatic union clear.

I vigerously disagree with 'clear', could you justify this claim?

Augmented with logic, the hypostatic union can stand.

The hypostatic union is no more 'logical' than the 'trinity', both man-made doctrines don't make sense(rationally atleast) and are regarded as 'holy mysteries' by the Church.
I wonder what approach you have that makes the hypostatic union 'logical'?

Jesus is clearly identified as divine in John 1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15-20, and Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13 (among many other passages). Jesus is clearly identified as a human in Hebrews 2:17, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 1:14, and Luke 24:39 (among many other passages). Throughout the NT Jesus is depicted as a single person, and not two. Therefore, it is no major leap to arrive at the hypostatic union.

First of all, i absolutely agree, for every biblical verse that shows Jesus as 'divine', there are about 3 verses that show Jesus was no more than human.

Secondly, i disagree with your comment: " it is no major leap to arrive at the hypostatic union". The initial concept is illogical(that Jesus is God & Human simultaneously), then making that concept into a Church doctrine is beyond words to me. But im not here to debate subjective opinion, so ill stick to the topic & debate objectively.

Further, even if you reject these verses altogether, you have the history of theology to deal with.

Im going to take the Bible as authoritative in this debate, so i wont reject a single biblical verse.

Here are five examples (among many) as to why the hypostatic union is logical in accordance with Biblical ideas:

First of all, they are Subjective Beliefs. I dont accept these as 'examples', i take an 'example' as something that is represented with objective evidence and/or sound logic. But ill play along here.

(1) Anselm of Canterbury: The savior had to be a God-man because mankind had the obligation to pay the debt, but only God could pay the debt. If Jesus was only God, he could not pay the debt because he lacked the responsibility, but if he was only a human he could not pay the debt because he lacked the ability. Therefore, he must be a single person who is both God and man.

'God-man' ? Hercules was also a 'God-man', along with Achilles in Greek & Roman mythology. You know what we call these? DemiGods, the sort that the Pagan Emperor Saint Constantine worshipped.
Back to the topic, i find it absolutely ridiculous that an Al-Mighty God cannot give himself "responsibility" that a mere human has. Also, who has the authority to determine whether God lacks 'responsibility'? Also, what is 'responsibility'?

(2) Bonaventure: Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega, and this is often make into a philosophical statement that he is eternal. But a more appropriate understanding is that he was first and last. He was first as the pre-existent being through whom all things were created. He was last because he was himself the crowning creation and perfect human being, Jesus Christ. Apart from the incarnation, or the joining of the creative Principle with the perfect creation, Jesus (and God) could not appropriately be called the alpha and omega.

I dont get the interpretation, how is being the 'perfect human being' make you you 'omega'(last) ? Doesn't this mean all the prior creations were also 'perfect' ?

(3) Athanasius: Mankind had been created in the image of God, but that image was destroyed (or at least damaged) through sin. In order to restore the image in mankind, God himself had to take on human nature to purify it and restore the image to it. Jesus "must" be fully man and fully God to recreate this image of God in humanity.

I bolded out the bit where i require you to provide biblical evidence.
And i put apostrophes around the word that expresses a blatant logical fallcy.

(4) Irenaeus: Only a God-man could fulfill the Promises made in the Old Testament. How could David have a descendent whose reign would never end if the eternal one Himself did not become David's descendent? Jesus must be God and man to fulfill the promises.

Wow, just wow.
Firstly, id like biblical justification for the bolded bits.
Secondly, no Jew expects the Messiah to "live forever", and the OT doesn't say the Messiah would be eternal.
Thirdly, you just pointed out an unfulfilled prophecy, who exactly did Jesus "Reign" over? He was rejected by the people he was sent to. So please, please show me without any verbal gymnastics on how Jesus "reigned" and brought back the Jewish Golden Age.

(5) Gregory of Nazianzus: Jesus made a new human nature possible. When the divine nature joined hypostatically with the human nature, the human was purified and elevated. "That which he did not assume, he did not redeem" so a complete human nature must have been assumed in order for a complete redemption to be possible.

Is the bolded part a baseless assumption? Or can you back it up with evidence?

Of course, what I reduced to five sets of 1-2 sentences is actually five treatises from antiquity, each with many pages and arguments.

Ok, quote me the best arguements, that will make this debate alot quicker.

There are also many more arguments where these came from.

I would love to go through them one by one.

To call the hypostatic union "baseless" is nothing but polemic and ignorance of the history of theology.

I stand by my words, furthermore, ignorance is expressed more clearly in acceptance than it is in denial.
And you are restricting "The history of theology" to Christianity alone, lets not forget Christianity derived from Judaism, even Jesus was a Jew. Ask any rabbi on the "POSSIBILITY" of a "Trinity" or a "Hypostatic Union", the answer might surprise you.


The hypostatic union is a baseless because:
1. There is absolutely not a SINGLE biblical verse that even HINTS Jesus had both attributes SIMULTANEOUSLY. And i challenge you with open arms to prove this claim wrong.
2. The hypostatic union is assumed to exist subjectively for subjective reasons. And the texts from the Christian scholars you quoted from express this fact beautifully.
3. Why do the most significant doctrines such as the 'trinity' & the 'hypostatic union' need vague & assumed biblical interpretations? Does the God of the Bible like to confuse man? Why couldnt there be 1 unambiguous verse out of the 31102 verses in the Bible to erase confusion & doubt?

Perhaps the fathers were wrong, but the did not invent the hypostatic union without any reason for having done so. It wasn't baseless.

There was plenty of "reason" to create the hypostatic union. Just like there was plenty of "reason" to create the trinity.
To erase self-contradictory verses.

Point 2:
Is the "hypostatic union" actually rational? By saying Jesus had 2 distinct natures: 'Divine & Human', implies that both attributes of the natures co-exist simultaneously. Any person that can think logically, can see that this is contradictory. Why? Because the attributes of man and of God contradict each other. In other words, the whole doctrine is oxyMORONIC.

I consider the capitalization of MORONIC to be an insult. Please modify your tone in the future.

The doctrine is moronic in all regards and i justified it with reasons & i will continue to justify this claim further on in this post, in no way does 'insulting' the hypostatic union insult Christianity or your belief in salvation, so please dont take it personally.
Your welcome to believe any Islamic Doctrine is 'moronic' if you can provide Quranic verses & logical reasoning to justify it just like i have.

Gregory of Nyssa responded to your question in the following way: How does the soul unite with the body in a single human person? When you can answer that question, you can answer how the divine nature was united with the human.

Answering a question with a question... aka "i dont have an answer".
I think the answer is: "A holy mystery", the same answer Christian Theologians give for the Trinity. Ill clarify this analogy further on in this post.

Do you believe in the soul, Murad? Most Muslims do.

Yes, all muslims do, you cant be a muslim without believing you have a soul.

Yet, the body is tangible and the soul intangible.

Agreed, its intangible to humans.

The body is materialistic, and the soul immaterial.

Agreed.

The body is corrupted by disease, but the soul by sin.

Agreed.

The body hungers for food, but the soul only for God.

Agreed to a certain extent.

Both of our religious traditions admit the possibility of a body and a soul combining into a single human person. If we admit this, despite the differences between the body and soul, why immediately reject the hypostatic union despite the differences between human and divine nature?

Simple, the Soul & the Body dont conflict with one another.
The soul is not all-knowing, the body is not all-knowing.
The soul is not all-powerful, the body is not all-powerful.
The soul is equal to the body(one is not regarded 'holier' than the other)

The body is soley considered a vessel, nothing more, it does not affect the soul in any way(besides corruption with sin), the same way the soul does not affect the body. But what Gregory of Nazianzus said(which you quoted) is that when the divine nature joined hypostatically with the human nature, the human nature was "PURIFIED" & "ELEVATED". This does not happen with the body & the soul.
Thus i believe its a false analogy.


Furthermore, even the wording used in the hypostatic union is confusing.
I mean, 100% God & 100% Human, simultaneously?
Even Greek & Roman mythology is more logically sound, as DemiGods are considered 50% Human & 50% God, where the percentage does not exceed 100%(which it logically cannot).

Evaluation of Point 2:
God is all-knowing:

"whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
(1 John 3:20)

Jesus was not all-knowing:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Mark 13:32)

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Matthew 24:36)

Many points here, Murad. First, "nor the son" is not in all manuscripts. It might not even be Biblical. On the other hand, there are good arguments for why it might be. So let's grant it for the moment.

The most ancient Greek manuscripts contain the phrase "nor the son", thus its used by the RSV Bible & most of the other Bibles.
Also i dont see the benefit of you saying the "Word of God" contains fictional alterations, or am i missing something?

In John 16:30 the disciples say that Jesus knew all things.

Which is clearly rebuttaled by Jesus Christ himself in Matt 24:36 & Mark 13:32.
Who do you give more authority, Jesus or his Disciples?

There are many other Scriptures that could be interpreted in the same way, but let's limit it to this one. If you have a set of Scriptures that seems to suggest that Jesus is both God and man, and you have passages where Jesus is depicted as all knowing (John 16:30) and passages where Jesus has limited knowledge (Matthew 24:36), is it completely unreasonable to suggest that this God-man emptied himself of some of his omniscience in the incarnation (i.e. Phil. 2)? The interpretations of Jesus' humanity and divinity are built on passages such as these, and not refuted by them. In looking at these passages, early Christians saw a human and divine savior.

The bolded texts id like you to justify, what other texts can be interpreted to show Jesus' omniscience?


Also you didn't even attempt to justify the OP, and it seems you didn't even quote it. Here ill help you, these were my allegations, if you can justify these ill withdraw my earlier statement that the hypostatic union is moronic:

In order for Jesus to co-exist in 2 distinct natures: Divine(God) and human, the attributes of both the Divine and the human must co-exist simultaneously.

How can Jesus be all-knowing and not all-knowing simultaneously?

It is contradicting because: if Jesus is "all-knowing" that means he cannot be "not all-knowing." If Jesus is "not all-knowing" that means he cannot be "all-knowing."

Funny you forgot to quote the heart of my post.

According to the Bible, man is not eternal and God is eternal.

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"
(Deuteronomy 33:27)

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."
(Jeremiah 10:10)

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."
(1 Timothy 6:16)

You are ignoring the entire history of theosis (etc) whereby the union of finite man and eternal God brings eternal life to finite men.[1] In fact, you are ignoring all passages in the NT that refer to the eternal life of humans.[2] And you are ignoring the fact that the paradox of finitude and eternality was a reason why the hypostatic union was devised, not why it should be rejected.[3] How can a finite human have communion with the infinite God?[4] Through the unity of finite human nature and infinite divine nature in Jesus Christ, the new Adam.[5]

Reply to the numbers:
1. What on earth does the history of theosis have to do with this?
2. YOU are ignoring all the verses of the NT that implies if you dont believe in Christ you wont have "Eternal Life". Why the double standard?
3. The paradox is still there, Jesus died while he was fully God.
4. Please express how Finitude & Eternality disallow communication between the two, also the Jews did it & still do it without a hypostatic union or a trinity.
5. Really? Why doesn't the OT hint of this?

Point 3:
If i said person X has 2 distinct natures. One is male & the other is female. Would you believe me? No, because the very nature of both attributes contradict & oppose each other. Thus a human having both natures of male&female cannot co-exist simultaneously, the same way Jesus being "Fully man & Fully God" cannot co-exist simultaneously.

Your argument seems to say because I don't believe it, therefore it must be false.

No not me, it asks YOU(the reader), the outcome is determined by the human cognitive process as illogical.

Water is H20. Two molecules of hydrogen and one of Oxygen. They form a singe molecule with distinct properties, but the hydrogen does not cease to be hydrogen nor the oxygen oxygen. The atoms have different properties (and maybe contradictory properties, i'm not sure), but we do not deny their cohesion.

A very, very poor analogy, and i find it humerous that Wootah actually complimented you on this.
First of all, basic Trinity:
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God.

Christians do NOT believe that each entity of trinity MAKES UP God, they believe each entity of the Trinity is FULLY God.

Is Hydrogen Fully water?
Is Oxygen Fully water?

Becoming God is a destination that can ever be reached, but the union of human nature and divine nature in God is not a surefire argument against a God-man; rather it is the means by which two contradictory entities converge into communion, coherence, and identity by the restoration of the image of God.

Exactly, "Two Contradictory Entities". And i need evidence for the bolded comment.

Contradictions are admitted and necessary for an orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union, which entails such ideas as the communicatio idomatum, the convergence of the very contradiction is assumed and is a part of the doctrine. You can't falsify a doctrine that is built upon, assumes, and needs a contradiction by pointing to the contradiction.

Non Sequitur.
So i cant falsify the Trinity or the Hypostatic union because it falsifies itself? Is this your arguement?

Female and male could be united to overcome contradiction if the female could in some way limit itself to become united with male, and if the male could be raised to become female. This doesn't make sense because there is no hierarchy of male/female just as there is no means to become less male or for a female to become more male-like. Females are not omnipotent and therefore able to limit themselves in this way, and males are not created in the image of females and able to be restored to their likeness. But the language of the NT is filled with language of Jesus limiting himself in the incarnation, of humans being raised, purified, sanctified, transformed, restored, etc. through communion with God. It's full of the language of humans created in the image of God. Taking the NT, the convergence and unity in a single person of divine and human natures is different from the convergence of male and female.

For the first bolded line, "Fully Man" or "Fully Woman" means having all the qualities that Gender does, as in the human organs & hormones, body composition etc...
Thus there is no need for a 'hierarchy' of any sort.

For the second bolded line:
They are the same, as in they are two contradictory forces.
Male - Female [opposite]
Divine - Non Divine(human) [opposite]

Both conflict with each other, as in logically you cannot be both simultaneously, simply because the attributes of the divine render the attributes of the human useless. Similarly, the organ of a man(penis) was made specifically for an opposite organ, thus you cannot have both simultaneously. (How can yo be all-knowing & not all-knowing simultaneously?)

Sure, you can throw out the holy text, but to suggest that the hypostatic union is necessarily impossible based on an analogy to men and women does no justice to the Biblical text from which the hypostatic union emerged.

I took multiple approaches, the first approach was with the Bible, which i pointed out Jesus was not all-knowing with your own scripture.
The second approach, which is this one, i provided a logical analogy which justifies my earlier claims, on why its "Illogical".
The analogy by itself isn't necessarily conclusive, and its not ment to be, all my arguements compliment each other.

A final point here: I argued in a thread a few months ago about Personhood that the idea of the person was historically originated in the debates surrounding chalcedon, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity. "Person" as a word and philosophical concept began to be used in a new way because of Christian theology. Suddenly, the person was the first principle and being was subordinate, so that a person is different from a being and from the nature ascribed to that being. There can be three persons subsisting in one being, just as there can be one person with two natures. The definition of person perfectly allows this. If, however, you eliminate a distinction between person and being, then personhood is a vacuous idea. If you eliminate the distinction between person and being, the idea of two natures in one person is illogical primarily because "person" has no meaning in the first place. The only plausible theistic approaches then become pantheism or panentheism or paganism, but a religion (like Christianity or Islam) that allows for a God to create a world that then stands apart from Him requires the idea of a person that is above being and can relate to other persons as others. If this is not possible, then God, in creating the Universe, expands his own being (thus pantheism) or creates a different being that cannot therefore relate to His own being. The philosophy undergirding Christianity frees it from your challenge just as it allows for the basic theological tennets of both of our faiths.

The bolded bit i agree if the two natures arn't self-contradictory and are run simultaneously.

Islam does not have this problem, when we say God is 1(person/being/entity whatever), we absolutely mean it, exactly like Judaism, the words "Being/Existing" are not pre-defined. One thing that seperates Judaism & Islam from Christianity, is that we do not attribute NUMBERS to the oneness of God.

To summarize: Your argument is poorly worded, counter-examples exist, you do not accurately represent the hypostatic union (thus a straw man), your criticism can be leveled against your own position, and you pay no attention to the philosophy of ontology and personhood. In short, your critique is entirely too simplistic and uninformed.

If my post is that simple why didn't you even attempt to justify my arguements?(The ones i re-quoted) Or why did you present an illogical h20 analogy that is completely incompatible with the hypostatic union?

Conclusion:
The Hypostatic Union is a concoction, which when analysed, contradicts itselfs.

Did you actually "analyze"? Murad, I don't go around starting threads about how Islam is oxyMORONIC because I don't know the doctrines of Islam well enough to judge.

There are no self-contradictory doctrines, or doctrines that rely on contradictions in Islam. Infact if you believe there are, the Quran challenges you to prove it:

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than GOD, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.
[Quran 4:82]

As you said earlier, the hypostatic union was created TO POINT OUT the contradiction(Of simultaneous existence). The doctrine itself does not give an answer to the contradiction, it simply shows there is a discrepancy but somehow it still exists.

The exact parallel can be said for the Trinity, the doctrine points out the contradiction, but somehow it still exists. (With no logical answer given)

I've taken a class or two and read a few books and talked with a few Muslim friends, but I'm still learning. Your post is evidence to me that you took a definition from a dictionary and a three sentence summary of the hypostatic union then tried to show why it was moronic. Perhaps you could better understand what the hypostatic union was, how it originated, or what sources it came from if you sought to understand it more fully first. Have you ever read Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, or any other theologian who actually addresses these issues? It might be helpful if you did.

The history of the Hypostatic Union or how "it came into being" or how it "evolved" really does not affect the OP unless you can show me how. Like the quotations you provided earlier, they are mere opinion, with absolutely no objective evidence, claims are made on 'why' it has to exist, while no answer is given on how it exists logically.

I pointed this out to Murad when he was discussing the Trinity and complaining how he couldn't comprehend it and yet in other contexts he can miraculous comprehend teams, ummas, groups and so on.

I think you rephrased me a bit, i said i understand the Trinity, but i can't make any sense of it.
Also what on earth does "Teams, ummas, groups" have to do with the Trinity?
I havn't come across a SINGLE Christian that sees God as a "Team". Your the first, congratz.

Now in the hypostatic union he can't understand it but Theopoesis easily points out that Muslims believe in the body and soul which is basically the same thing. Or water as pointed out again.

The body & the soul dont conflict with each other, i pointed out why.
And the water analogy was flawed from the start, im not surprised you didn't see it.

Murad, how come you are unable to understand Christian concepts when you can understand the same concept in other contexts?

No, the analogies provided for the hypostatic union are flawed from the very start. There is not a single 'context' that is parallel to the hypostatic union, and i challenge you to prove this fact wrong.