S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
While both are obviously difficult concepts, which do you think is the easier concept to understand between the Trinity and the hypostatic union and why?
While we can’t fully understand either concept in our limited human minds, for me the Trinity seems to be the easier concept to wrap my brain around. I think it is because the hypostatic union, in part, deals with a subject that I am intimately familiar with (i.e. a human being having a human nature) and is opposed to/at odds with that understanding (i.e. Christ being one person but having two separate and distinct natures), whereas the Trinity is so utterly foreign and completely “other” to our own human experience that it is easier to accept as a mystery of the existence of God. I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense at least somewhat.
While we can’t fully understand either concept in our limited human minds, for me the Trinity seems to be the easier concept to wrap my brain around. I think it is because the hypostatic union, in part, deals with a subject that I am intimately familiar with (i.e. a human being having a human nature) and is opposed to/at odds with that understanding (i.e. Christ being one person but having two separate and distinct natures), whereas the Trinity is so utterly foreign and completely “other” to our own human experience that it is easier to accept as a mystery of the existence of God. I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense at least somewhat.
