You wrote:
What you wrote and what you now claim to have been asking are out of accord with one another. My response keyed in on the portion in your original post shown in
red above.
For that matter,
subsistence and
existence are not synonyms, especially related to this topic: the Godhead. We need to use the terms precisely as they were intended by the church, not importing anachronistically modern day assumptions about the words being used.
For example, the human nature of Jesus Christ is not a personal man, but a human
nature without personal
subsistence. That human
nature truly exists, but it is not a
personal subsistence. The human nature of Christ was not an independent hypostasis (
anhypostatic), but it was
enhypostatic, that is, the human nature had its subsistence in and through the the Second Person of the Trinity that took up the human nature.
If you can wrap your mind around the following, you will be well on the way to coming to a more fuller understanding of the Trinity:
There never was a man, Jesus Christ, without the fact that this man was also fully God. A man called Jesus Christ—a person—did not exist who was assumed (
taken up) by the Second Person of the Trinity to make the God-man, Jesus Christ. What was taken up by the Second Person of the Trinity was a human
nature, not a human person.
AMR
