This florilegium is definitely sufficient proof that the *language* of divine-human person is not intrinsically wrong.
“...but insofar as the divine hypostasis has also become the hypostasis of the human nature, that is, the one hypostasis has accepted the name and definition of the nature it has assumed.” Honestly, this summary of the hypostatic union (which I see no problem with) doesn’t contradict what I’ve seen Perry Robinson and others say in essence.
My intuition is that this is more of a language issue than a substantial one. But I haven’t looked into this really at all.
I don’t think he would disagree with ‘divine-human’ language either. Where he departs from the Fathers is in his belief that hypostasis exists transcendent of and apart from nature. This view is anti-patristic, as the Fathers are universally clear that hypostasis is nothing other than nature with properties.
Hm. I’d like to talk with him about this, that sounds like a pretty juvenile error for someone as seasoned as Perry to make. Although it’s not unbelievable as it’s clearly an error Zizioulas and Yannaras make.
I have never once said that the persons are "apart" from the essence or divided from it. I have argued that the persons are not reducible to the essence against Modalism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
So your attribution to me of this view is a misrepresentation. Please retract it.
"Where he departs from the Fathers is in his belief that hypostasis exists transcendent of and apart from nature."
Do you think "above" entails separation? I don't. And I have never said as much. This is the view you clearly attribute to me and it is false. I deny it. I have never said this. Ever.
It seems to me you are conflating different concepts to attribute to me the absurd view. You seem to think being above or transcendent, supervenient, or non-reducible entails existing "apart."
So I have never said person exists "apart" from essence. I have only maintained that while it is true that there is no essence without hypostasis that it doesn't follow that the humanity of Christ has a hypostasis of that nature, but of God the Word alone in line with the 5th council. This is in direct opposition to associates of yours teaching that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases into a new one.
I believe that hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts and in this way it is not reducible to essence instantiation, This is why I have used the language of "above" or the language of supervenience or being epi-essential and so on. If it isn't then perhaps you can explain how the same essence is F, S and HS along the lines of strict identity.
If we agree that hypostasis is not simply an instance of an essence then to my knowledge this is a new position from your side as this has been going on since about 2018. Perhaps you have not floated that idea, but others have.
But if we agree that hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts, it follows that there is a legitimate sense that it is "above" nature/essence.
So no, I have never said what you attribute to me and in the sense that you attribute to me. It is very clear to me that you have not understood what I have said at all.
I’ll take your word for it and give you the benefit of the doubt that when you say hypostasis is “above” or “transcendent” of nature, that you are not imposing a separation from it. However, you’ll now have to demonstrate the Saints speaking of Hypostasis in such a manner.
St. Anastasius of Sinai says the exact opposite of your position: “Nature is the mistress and cause and generator of the hypostases in it. And therefore, the hypostases are spoken of as standing under the nature, their source.” (PG 89.60BC)
That Christ becomes the hypostasis of the human nature, as St. John Damascene and Fr. Dumitru Stanilaoe say, does not mean He has an independent human hypostasis. You are now doing what you accused me of, and are misrepresenting the position of my associates. They have never put forth the position that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases into a new one, and this is exactly the false accusation this Florilegium addresses. Their position all along, as is mine, because this is what the Saints teach, is that Christ is the one, composite hypostasis, divine-human.
I believe you are also in assert that hypostasis is “more than the sum of its parts” and you’ll once again have to demonstrate where the Saints teach this.
St. Maximos the Confessor is very clear on this matter: “And again, we believe the same exists in two natures indivisibly, as in divinity and humanity. For just as we say Christ is from two natures—we contemplate [Him] existing from divinity and humanity, as a whole from parts (ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὅλον)—so also we speak of two natures after the union, believing [Him to be] existing in divinity and humanity, as a whole in parts (ὡς ὅλον ἐν μέρεσι). And His divinity and humanity are parts of Christ (Μέρη δὲ Χριστοῦ ἡ θεότης αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπότης), from which and in which He subsists.” (Epistle 13, PG 91, Col. 524D-525A)
It’s become very clear to me that you have stubbornly misunderstood our position, and that your position has no basis in the Saints, unless you can prove otherwise.
You don’t need to take my word for it. Either you can prove your claim by providing documentation that I expressed such a view or you can’t. If you can’t then you need to retract it.
Do you take St. Anastasius to be expressing the idea that say the divine essence generates the persons of the Trinity or some other idea? All I see him saying is that hypostasis is subsistence that it undergirds or concretizes essence. Last I checked God the Father timelessly produces the other two persons and not some fourth thing. In any case I can’t see that the quote you provide from St. Anastasius touches my view in any way. If you think so, you’ll need to explain how you think it does.
I am not misrepresenting their position. First, you are as far as I can tell a relative new comer to this “dispute” which as been going on at least since 2018. Second, I have plenty of documented expressions by your associates over the last 5 yrs or more to document my claims where they deny the irreducibility of person to nature, affirm that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases coming together, that the divine persons are just instances of the divine essence as well as Al-Ghazali’s Islamic Occasionalism and so on. Take for example this expression from one of your associates.
“The hypostatic union is the union of divine and human hypostases as one Person, the Christ, the God-man.” July, 2023.
Notice, hypostasis is in the plural. So no, what you say about their views has not been their position “all along.”
I should not have to prove that a hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts. If it weren’t it would be a mere aggregate or metaphysical heep or just at best an instance of an essence. If you have some other metaphysical option, I’d love to hear it. As for a hypostasis as essence with properties, as I have said before, what this amounts to has to be explained. What is the relation between the two? Are they an aggregate, constitutive, what? Does their union individuate and if so how and in what sense? Are tables, rocks or other inanimate objects hypostases? They are after all an essence with individuating properties, they are discrete individuals, which is another meaning for the Greek term. Again, throwing around slogans does no work.
Moreover, on the Christological front, Christ is not just an essence with properties as he has two essences and two different kinds of properties which are united in and by the hypostasis of God the Word. Here again it is clear that the hypostasis is more than its constiuents.
Second, there could be no difference between the divine essence and the persons of the Trinity if persons were reducible to the essence, but there is. That is the whole point of distinguishing properties which aren't essential properties.
Third, you’ll notice that the text from St. Maximus distinguishes between whole and parts, which would be impossible if the whole just was the part(s) and if the whole is what unites the parts. The former is false and the latter is true. God the Word unites human nature in and to his hypostasis, himself. “The same” refers to the hypostasis of God the Word, which is not reducible to the divine essence, for God the Word suffers but the divine essence does not, along with other distinctions. “He” is doing the existing in the parts, which again means he is more than the parts that he has. If you just follow the text it fairly clearly takes the whole to be something distinct from the parts, because the whole, the hypostasis of God the Word pre-exists at least one of his parts, his humanity.
As to the material from Fr. Staniloae I find that references curious, since he was lumped by your associates in with teaching…oh what is the word… “Satanism” and labeled as a “Neo-Palamite” and is to be “avoided.” And yes, I can support these claims with documentation.
As to hypostatic composition, I have affirmed and defended hypostatic composition against Nestorians and Monophysites going back at least to 2008 which is documented on my blog. But of course hypostatic composition can be said in many ways and many heretical positions affirm that language also. Which is why explanation and explication are necessary and not mere sloganeering.
As to your personal evaluation of me, I simply put it to the side. I also deny that I have misunderstood the position of your associates. They have just had to move as various objections got thrown their way, which is precisely why I have documented their expressions over the last half dozen years. When this started they were saying God the Word underwent primary substantial change at the incarnation, which would entail that God the Word ceased to exist. Clearly there were, shall we say, under informed, to say the least about the terms and concepts.
In any case, I am not answerable to you and what I have said about hypostatic existence is not difficult to see or in dispute. If you wish to charge me with heresy, you are free to make your charges to my bishop, who is the current metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese or to the local dean, who also happens to be my Fr. confessor.
More directly, you have made a public claim about me that you have failed to prove and for which I have provided an adequate explanation. In the future, if you wish to make a public charge of error, you should be prepared to document your claims and if you can’t refrain from making them.
So the only thing that matters now is, do you retract your claim or not?
That you claimed hypostasis is "above nature" is documented, which is still wrong and has no basis in the Saints whether you mean it exists apart from nature or not.
Regarding St. Anastasius, I simply take him to be expressing that hypostasis is not above nature, because he explicitly denies that, whereas you assert it.
I was in Dyer's discord server in 2018 when this conversation started. So l'm aware of what both sides have said, and I have never seen Hill/Alan make the claim person is reducible to nature, that's just something you've imposed onto their view. I've also never seen them say person is just an individuated nature. Regarding that your documentation from July, 2023, I did a search and the only comparable thing I could find was the following by Nikodim Barber (@SteveBarber) on Twitter: “‘The hypostatic union is the union of the divine and human physes as one Person, Christ the God-man.'” This is indeed incorrect. However, he is not associated with any of us so I’m very sorry to disappoint you. Moreover, he seems to be rephrasing your own question you brought up for the poll. Unless you’re speaking of someone else, it would be better for you to be more precise about who you’re referring to and when exactly it was said.
You can find my references to Fr. Dumitru to be curious all you want, but you’ll still have to address the fact that he doesn’t say what you say.
I thinks it’s a shame that you feel you don’t need to prove something is the case. The least you can do is show what the Saints say. If you’re not going to provide any Saints explicitly speaking of the hypostasis as being "above nature" or as the hypostasis being "more than its parts,” then we can end the conversation here, as I have no interest in your personal opinions or having you insert your faulty interpretations into the citations I’m providing.
I have not charged you of heresy because that is not my place. I simply maintain you are in error to say hypostasis exists above nature and that hypostasis is something more than its parts.
That you assert that I am still wrong, is just an assertion. If you wish to say that essence and hypostasis are the same, then you can explain how there are three hypostases in the Trinity but only one essence or how there are two essences in Christ but only one hypostasis. This is pretty basic Christian teaching.
I think with respect to St. Anastasis, you are getting hung up on the term “above.” If you notice he takes hypostasis to be subsistence, the expression of standing underneath and holding it up is older. Either way of looking at it is fine. And notice the difference in directional language still supports the distinction between essence and hypostasis. “Above” or “below” makes no conceptual difference here. St. Anastasius isn’t a Sabellian after all.
As to dates, I was not in the Discord server then but I can say that in 2017 Hill started pushing the human person stuff on Facebook on Jerrod Waldner’s wall among other places. That was a four day convo when he said that God the Word underwent primary substantial change.
You have never seen me say that the persons exist “apart” either but you felt free to accuse me of a gross error and departing from the Fathers with absolutely no proof. So the fact that you haven’t see them make these comments is not a reason for thinking I have imposed that reading on them. That is an assumption you are brining to the issue. Moreover, you felt free to accuse me with no proof based on hearsay without even bothering to ask me what I thought, which would have been biblical and the civil thing to do. Even Trey saw above that such a mistake is rather rudimentary and it is unlikely that I would make it. But you had no proof and you proceeded on the basis of what others told you to make public accusations without even asking me. Honestly, this is evidence of prejudice on your part. You should at least try to be fair and not accuse people based on hearsay.
The remark isn’t from Barber and notice the wording is different. Again, I have the original screenshots. (And a correction on my part, it was in 2021. The previous date was a typo on my part that I failed to catch before posting.) And I never said what social media platform the remarks were made on. And plenty of your associates were part of the convo and showed their approval to the statement even though it expressed Nestorianism. It shows that they were just fine with the idea of two hypostases and really didn’t understand what they were talking about.
As to Fr. Staniloae, I believe he does express the same concepts as myself. In fact, I think do you do as well. Back in August when you posted with approval the statement that “the humanity does not belong to a human hypostasis as this would create a second subsistence in Christ, but rather to the divine hypostasis that assumes the humanity.”
This is the point I have been expressing for 7 yrs which your associates repeatedly denied. The fact that you agree with it means I was not in error on that Christological point for the last 7 years as your associates have repeatedly claimed. They were either in error or confused. Here the shoe of error is on the other foot for your associates for denying something you recognize as a truth for nearly 7 years. Again, I was very clear & repeatedly so on this point the whole way through. I'll let you argue with them about their denial of it.
Furthermore, the statements about Staniloae being a “Neo-palamite” and the latter amounted to “Satanism” I have the screenshots from your associates freely making those remarks in their server at the time. I don’t make those kinds of claims without proof. The same goes for the endorsement of Islamic Occasionalism and lots of other strange remarks.
What you think is a shame is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you retract your claim about the view you attributed to me. Do you retract it? Yes or no?
Furthermore, with you personally, I have taken the time over and over again to try to clarify and explain how I read the patristic texts you bring forward. I have repeatedly extended an invitation to Emil to discuss the matters as well. All I receive are more accusations and abusive behavior and insults. At best, a new batch of patristic texts are thrown at me with no analysis offered. Just proof texting.
If you are going to re-assert the claim that my reading is wrong, then you bear the burden to show where and how. Moreover, what exactly do you think “epi-essential” means? It means above nature. The persons of the Trinity are not reducible to the essence contra Modalism. It is expressing a non-reducible metaphysical relation. And your own sources say it. So it seems to me you reject your own sources.
So again, do you retract your claim that this convo began with or no?
This florilegium is definitely sufficient proof that the *language* of divine-human person is not intrinsically wrong.
“...but insofar as the divine hypostasis has also become the hypostasis of the human nature, that is, the one hypostasis has accepted the name and definition of the nature it has assumed.” Honestly, this summary of the hypostatic union (which I see no problem with) doesn’t contradict what I’ve seen Perry Robinson and others say in essence.
My intuition is that this is more of a language issue than a substantial one. But I haven’t looked into this really at all.
Thanks for the good work!
Ahh yes, Perry...
I don’t think he would disagree with ‘divine-human’ language either. Where he departs from the Fathers is in his belief that hypostasis exists transcendent of and apart from nature. This view is anti-patristic, as the Fathers are universally clear that hypostasis is nothing other than nature with properties.
Hm. I’d like to talk with him about this, that sounds like a pretty juvenile error for someone as seasoned as Perry to make. Although it’s not unbelievable as it’s clearly an error Zizioulas and Yannaras make.
I have never once said that the persons are "apart" from the essence or divided from it. I have argued that the persons are not reducible to the essence against Modalism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
So your attribution to me of this view is a misrepresentation. Please retract it.
Wait so you no longer believe hypostasis is “above nature” like you said a few weeks ago? Those are your words, it’s not a misrepresentation.
We both agree hypostasis is not reducible to nature, and no one has put forth that position.
"Where he departs from the Fathers is in his belief that hypostasis exists transcendent of and apart from nature."
Do you think "above" entails separation? I don't. And I have never said as much. This is the view you clearly attribute to me and it is false. I deny it. I have never said this. Ever.
It seems to me you are conflating different concepts to attribute to me the absurd view. You seem to think being above or transcendent, supervenient, or non-reducible entails existing "apart."
So I have never said person exists "apart" from essence. I have only maintained that while it is true that there is no essence without hypostasis that it doesn't follow that the humanity of Christ has a hypostasis of that nature, but of God the Word alone in line with the 5th council. This is in direct opposition to associates of yours teaching that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases into a new one.
I believe that hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts and in this way it is not reducible to essence instantiation, This is why I have used the language of "above" or the language of supervenience or being epi-essential and so on. If it isn't then perhaps you can explain how the same essence is F, S and HS along the lines of strict identity.
If we agree that hypostasis is not simply an instance of an essence then to my knowledge this is a new position from your side as this has been going on since about 2018. Perhaps you have not floated that idea, but others have.
But if we agree that hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts, it follows that there is a legitimate sense that it is "above" nature/essence.
So no, I have never said what you attribute to me and in the sense that you attribute to me. It is very clear to me that you have not understood what I have said at all.
I’ll take your word for it and give you the benefit of the doubt that when you say hypostasis is “above” or “transcendent” of nature, that you are not imposing a separation from it. However, you’ll now have to demonstrate the Saints speaking of Hypostasis in such a manner.
St. Anastasius of Sinai says the exact opposite of your position: “Nature is the mistress and cause and generator of the hypostases in it. And therefore, the hypostases are spoken of as standing under the nature, their source.” (PG 89.60BC)
That Christ becomes the hypostasis of the human nature, as St. John Damascene and Fr. Dumitru Stanilaoe say, does not mean He has an independent human hypostasis. You are now doing what you accused me of, and are misrepresenting the position of my associates. They have never put forth the position that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases into a new one, and this is exactly the false accusation this Florilegium addresses. Their position all along, as is mine, because this is what the Saints teach, is that Christ is the one, composite hypostasis, divine-human.
I believe you are also in assert that hypostasis is “more than the sum of its parts” and you’ll once again have to demonstrate where the Saints teach this.
St. Maximos the Confessor is very clear on this matter: “And again, we believe the same exists in two natures indivisibly, as in divinity and humanity. For just as we say Christ is from two natures—we contemplate [Him] existing from divinity and humanity, as a whole from parts (ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὅλον)—so also we speak of two natures after the union, believing [Him to be] existing in divinity and humanity, as a whole in parts (ὡς ὅλον ἐν μέρεσι). And His divinity and humanity are parts of Christ (Μέρη δὲ Χριστοῦ ἡ θεότης αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπότης), from which and in which He subsists.” (Epistle 13, PG 91, Col. 524D-525A)
It’s become very clear to me that you have stubbornly misunderstood our position, and that your position has no basis in the Saints, unless you can prove otherwise.
You don’t need to take my word for it. Either you can prove your claim by providing documentation that I expressed such a view or you can’t. If you can’t then you need to retract it.
Do you take St. Anastasius to be expressing the idea that say the divine essence generates the persons of the Trinity or some other idea? All I see him saying is that hypostasis is subsistence that it undergirds or concretizes essence. Last I checked God the Father timelessly produces the other two persons and not some fourth thing. In any case I can’t see that the quote you provide from St. Anastasius touches my view in any way. If you think so, you’ll need to explain how you think it does.
I am not misrepresenting their position. First, you are as far as I can tell a relative new comer to this “dispute” which as been going on at least since 2018. Second, I have plenty of documented expressions by your associates over the last 5 yrs or more to document my claims where they deny the irreducibility of person to nature, affirm that the hypostatic union is a union of two hypostases coming together, that the divine persons are just instances of the divine essence as well as Al-Ghazali’s Islamic Occasionalism and so on. Take for example this expression from one of your associates.
“The hypostatic union is the union of divine and human hypostases as one Person, the Christ, the God-man.” July, 2023.
Notice, hypostasis is in the plural. So no, what you say about their views has not been their position “all along.”
I should not have to prove that a hypostasis is more than the sum of its parts. If it weren’t it would be a mere aggregate or metaphysical heep or just at best an instance of an essence. If you have some other metaphysical option, I’d love to hear it. As for a hypostasis as essence with properties, as I have said before, what this amounts to has to be explained. What is the relation between the two? Are they an aggregate, constitutive, what? Does their union individuate and if so how and in what sense? Are tables, rocks or other inanimate objects hypostases? They are after all an essence with individuating properties, they are discrete individuals, which is another meaning for the Greek term. Again, throwing around slogans does no work.
Moreover, on the Christological front, Christ is not just an essence with properties as he has two essences and two different kinds of properties which are united in and by the hypostasis of God the Word. Here again it is clear that the hypostasis is more than its constiuents.
Second, there could be no difference between the divine essence and the persons of the Trinity if persons were reducible to the essence, but there is. That is the whole point of distinguishing properties which aren't essential properties.
Third, you’ll notice that the text from St. Maximus distinguishes between whole and parts, which would be impossible if the whole just was the part(s) and if the whole is what unites the parts. The former is false and the latter is true. God the Word unites human nature in and to his hypostasis, himself. “The same” refers to the hypostasis of God the Word, which is not reducible to the divine essence, for God the Word suffers but the divine essence does not, along with other distinctions. “He” is doing the existing in the parts, which again means he is more than the parts that he has. If you just follow the text it fairly clearly takes the whole to be something distinct from the parts, because the whole, the hypostasis of God the Word pre-exists at least one of his parts, his humanity.
As to the material from Fr. Staniloae I find that references curious, since he was lumped by your associates in with teaching…oh what is the word… “Satanism” and labeled as a “Neo-Palamite” and is to be “avoided.” And yes, I can support these claims with documentation.
As to hypostatic composition, I have affirmed and defended hypostatic composition against Nestorians and Monophysites going back at least to 2008 which is documented on my blog. But of course hypostatic composition can be said in many ways and many heretical positions affirm that language also. Which is why explanation and explication are necessary and not mere sloganeering.
As to your personal evaluation of me, I simply put it to the side. I also deny that I have misunderstood the position of your associates. They have just had to move as various objections got thrown their way, which is precisely why I have documented their expressions over the last half dozen years. When this started they were saying God the Word underwent primary substantial change at the incarnation, which would entail that God the Word ceased to exist. Clearly there were, shall we say, under informed, to say the least about the terms and concepts.
In any case, I am not answerable to you and what I have said about hypostatic existence is not difficult to see or in dispute. If you wish to charge me with heresy, you are free to make your charges to my bishop, who is the current metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese or to the local dean, who also happens to be my Fr. confessor.
More directly, you have made a public claim about me that you have failed to prove and for which I have provided an adequate explanation. In the future, if you wish to make a public charge of error, you should be prepared to document your claims and if you can’t refrain from making them.
So the only thing that matters now is, do you retract your claim or not?
I don't need to take your word for it but I have.
That you claimed hypostasis is "above nature" is documented, which is still wrong and has no basis in the Saints whether you mean it exists apart from nature or not.
Regarding St. Anastasius, I simply take him to be expressing that hypostasis is not above nature, because he explicitly denies that, whereas you assert it.
I was in Dyer's discord server in 2018 when this conversation started. So l'm aware of what both sides have said, and I have never seen Hill/Alan make the claim person is reducible to nature, that's just something you've imposed onto their view. I've also never seen them say person is just an individuated nature. Regarding that your documentation from July, 2023, I did a search and the only comparable thing I could find was the following by Nikodim Barber (@SteveBarber) on Twitter: “‘The hypostatic union is the union of the divine and human physes as one Person, Christ the God-man.'” This is indeed incorrect. However, he is not associated with any of us so I’m very sorry to disappoint you. Moreover, he seems to be rephrasing your own question you brought up for the poll. Unless you’re speaking of someone else, it would be better for you to be more precise about who you’re referring to and when exactly it was said.
You can find my references to Fr. Dumitru to be curious all you want, but you’ll still have to address the fact that he doesn’t say what you say.
I thinks it’s a shame that you feel you don’t need to prove something is the case. The least you can do is show what the Saints say. If you’re not going to provide any Saints explicitly speaking of the hypostasis as being "above nature" or as the hypostasis being "more than its parts,” then we can end the conversation here, as I have no interest in your personal opinions or having you insert your faulty interpretations into the citations I’m providing.
I have not charged you of heresy because that is not my place. I simply maintain you are in error to say hypostasis exists above nature and that hypostasis is something more than its parts.
That you assert that I am still wrong, is just an assertion. If you wish to say that essence and hypostasis are the same, then you can explain how there are three hypostases in the Trinity but only one essence or how there are two essences in Christ but only one hypostasis. This is pretty basic Christian teaching.
I think with respect to St. Anastasis, you are getting hung up on the term “above.” If you notice he takes hypostasis to be subsistence, the expression of standing underneath and holding it up is older. Either way of looking at it is fine. And notice the difference in directional language still supports the distinction between essence and hypostasis. “Above” or “below” makes no conceptual difference here. St. Anastasius isn’t a Sabellian after all.
As to dates, I was not in the Discord server then but I can say that in 2017 Hill started pushing the human person stuff on Facebook on Jerrod Waldner’s wall among other places. That was a four day convo when he said that God the Word underwent primary substantial change.
You have never seen me say that the persons exist “apart” either but you felt free to accuse me of a gross error and departing from the Fathers with absolutely no proof. So the fact that you haven’t see them make these comments is not a reason for thinking I have imposed that reading on them. That is an assumption you are brining to the issue. Moreover, you felt free to accuse me with no proof based on hearsay without even bothering to ask me what I thought, which would have been biblical and the civil thing to do. Even Trey saw above that such a mistake is rather rudimentary and it is unlikely that I would make it. But you had no proof and you proceeded on the basis of what others told you to make public accusations without even asking me. Honestly, this is evidence of prejudice on your part. You should at least try to be fair and not accuse people based on hearsay.
The remark isn’t from Barber and notice the wording is different. Again, I have the original screenshots. (And a correction on my part, it was in 2021. The previous date was a typo on my part that I failed to catch before posting.) And I never said what social media platform the remarks were made on. And plenty of your associates were part of the convo and showed their approval to the statement even though it expressed Nestorianism. It shows that they were just fine with the idea of two hypostases and really didn’t understand what they were talking about.
As to Fr. Staniloae, I believe he does express the same concepts as myself. In fact, I think do you do as well. Back in August when you posted with approval the statement that “the humanity does not belong to a human hypostasis as this would create a second subsistence in Christ, but rather to the divine hypostasis that assumes the humanity.”
This is the point I have been expressing for 7 yrs which your associates repeatedly denied. The fact that you agree with it means I was not in error on that Christological point for the last 7 years as your associates have repeatedly claimed. They were either in error or confused. Here the shoe of error is on the other foot for your associates for denying something you recognize as a truth for nearly 7 years. Again, I was very clear & repeatedly so on this point the whole way through. I'll let you argue with them about their denial of it.
Furthermore, the statements about Staniloae being a “Neo-palamite” and the latter amounted to “Satanism” I have the screenshots from your associates freely making those remarks in their server at the time. I don’t make those kinds of claims without proof. The same goes for the endorsement of Islamic Occasionalism and lots of other strange remarks.
What you think is a shame is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you retract your claim about the view you attributed to me. Do you retract it? Yes or no?
Furthermore, with you personally, I have taken the time over and over again to try to clarify and explain how I read the patristic texts you bring forward. I have repeatedly extended an invitation to Emil to discuss the matters as well. All I receive are more accusations and abusive behavior and insults. At best, a new batch of patristic texts are thrown at me with no analysis offered. Just proof texting.
If you are going to re-assert the claim that my reading is wrong, then you bear the burden to show where and how. Moreover, what exactly do you think “epi-essential” means? It means above nature. The persons of the Trinity are not reducible to the essence contra Modalism. It is expressing a non-reducible metaphysical relation. And your own sources say it. So it seems to me you reject your own sources.
So again, do you retract your claim that this convo began with or no?
Craig Truglia did a article where he speaks about this.
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/07/13/is-christs-hypostasis-composite-or-divine/
It leaves much to be desired. Craig’s strong suit is history to say the least