Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    'Particular nature' means the same as 'hypostasis'. — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Christ should be said to have one complex or combined nature (mía phúsis súnthetos), not two discernible natures.

    'Particular nature' means the same as 'hypostasis'.

    Proof of definition segmentsTrinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    TrinityProof of definition segments

    Related

    Christ is one hypostasis and one person.Christ should be said to have one complex or combined nature (mía phúsis súnthet...Christ therefore has one particular nature.That one nature is complex, combining and preserving the properties of divinity ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    'Particular nature' is synonymous with 'hypostasis', which is itself s...93%Intrinsic nature functions both etymologically (from svabhāva) and as ...78%The nature and haecceity are not really distinct, since they are not s...74%If hypostasis is not an accident, it must be a primary substance in th...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: philoponus
    View source passageHide passage
    In Arbiter (Arbitrator or Umpire), written about the same time as the Council of Constantinople and surviving only in Syriac translation, Philoponus takes the view that the locution ‘discernible in two natures’ ought to be abandoned. His main strategy is to argue that in this context the meaning of the terms ‘nature’ and ‘hypóstasis’ are essentially identical, so that if Christ is (according to (3)) one hypóstasis he cannot also (as in (4)) be discernible in two natures. The argument goes roughl

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective