Ok.. this will really show my ignorance...
but someone please explain to me these things...
So in Chalcedon it was proposed that Christ is 1 person (proposon), 2 natures (homostasis), consubstantial with the Father and with humanity
i.e. trying to get 2 different 'models' of the incarnate Logos to agree with one another
then the monophysites are not happy with the 2 natures - and end up with 1 nature, mixed but not mixed!?
then the nestorians are not happy with the 1 person - and want to say 2 persons, but not really.. it's 1 person?!
now... in terms of how the Logos (Word) and Sarx (flesh) come together
the 2 views were... 1, the Logos is clothed with the sarx.... and 2, the Logos and sarx are 'side by side'
the reason for all this is they don't want the Logos to be 'changed' by the sarx - i.e. God cannot change
Now another question... is the idea of changing in the Logos because we have a wrong view of what it means to be Spirit and unchangeable?
would it be too wrong to say the resurrected Christ is the Spirit of God going through the Logos, into the sarx, forming a new 'way' a new creation..
basically in an eschatological sense - how are we eventually united with the divine nature, if the Logos and sarx never interpenetrate???
or am i off track?