Talk:Hypostatic union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
The second paragraph was cribbed rather liberally from the Catholic Encyclopedia, here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
"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 (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united."
[edit] A possible explanation for the Hypostatic Union
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)
[edit] Removing nonsense
"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)
[edit] Cleaned up
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)
