Is Christ a "Composite Hypostasis"?

[Mister_Trumpet]

How do we speak in Christology of Christ's hypostasis? How does it relate to nature? Is Christ's hypostasis a solely divine one with both a divine nature and human nature within it? If this is the case, how do we deal with the fact that nature always exists in the mode of a person and thus would imply that human nature exists in the mode of a human person? Would this not mean that Christ's hypostasis is not merely uncreated and divine, but also created and human?

I'm somewhat confused on this issue.

 

[Isaiah53IsMessiah]

Go read Parmenides and you will have an answer.

 

[Alpha60]

Or our own Fr. Peter Farrington, Orthodox Christology.

 

[Asteriktos]

Surely at least the sketch of an answer can/will be given?

 

[WPM]

Yea, if you begin to work out a definition of dictionary terms describing the Christology you have in mind.

 

[WPM]

Yes, if you work out the dictionary definitions.

 

[NicholasMyra]

When we say "Christ is a divine hypostasis" I think what we are doing is emphasizing that he is pre-eternal and the Logos, and that this is the same hypostasis that becomes human (as opposed to one that comes into being at the incarnation). So I think it is more about emphasis than strict definition.

 

[WPM]

When we say "Christ is a divine hypostasis" I think what we are doing is emphasizing that he is pre-eternal and the Logos, and that this is the same hypostasis that becomes human (as opposed to one that comes into being at the incarnation). So I think it is more about emphasis than strict definition.

I start with ~ Is Jesus God? and try to understand Chalcedony Christology.

 

[rakovsky]

How do we speak in Christology of Christ's hypostasis? How does it relate to nature? Is Christ's hypostasis a solely divine one with both a divine nature and human nature within it? If this is the case, how do we deal with the fact that nature always exists in the mode of a person and thus would imply that human nature exists in the mode of a human person? Would this not mean that Christ's hypostasis is not merely uncreated and divine, but also created and human?

I'm somewhat confused on this issue.

The term "composite Hypostasis" implies to me that it is a union of two hypostases and retains two hypostases in it, and this is not a way that EOs would describe the Hypostasis.
In contrast, EO Christology would say that unless you define hypostasis as "substance", then Christ has only one hypostasis, and the hypostasis is not a composite of two hypostases.
Christ is both divine and human, and so it can be said that His person is divine and human, and that His hypostasis is divine and human.
In EO Christology, in practice it looks like "person" and "hypostasis" could usually be used interchangeably. More technically, hypostasis has been translated as "subsistence."