Talk:Dyophysitism

No sources

There aren't any sources cited in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.76 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Article dose not clearly state whether Dyophysite is an accepted doctrine in orthodox Christianity.

Comment added by xpaladinx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Historical sequence is not clear

Last paragraph: "The belief in Jesus Christ being true Man and true God was imbedded in the Chalcedonian Creed.[5] Later it was integrated in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, the basic article of the faith of all Chalcedonian Christian denominations."

I don't quite understand what the justification for the word "Later" is here. Chalcedon was 451, and the trinity was clearly expressed at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) and that formulation of the trinity is accepted even by those who do not accept Chalcedon. So this sounds a bit confusing if not misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:5F4F:8787:F8C7:9AF6:DE4E:1BB6 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Propsoed merge with Hypostatic union

This page does not distinguish them. Hence they can be merged. Merging would incur no wp:weight issues. Hence they cannot be strongly said to be unable to be merged. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree; I think that dyophysitism doesn't intrinsically argue for hypostatic union. Dyophysitism says that there are two natures in Christ, and hypostatic union says that they are contained in one person. However, there are more fringe beliefs that the two natures of Christ are not contained in one person; that is, that there are multiple persons in Christ. See Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)#Christian theology.

TypistMonkey (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)